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:
Here’s what we know so far about the Senate, the House, and key local races.
American voters have chosen Donald Trump as their next president — again. The decision will have monumental consequences for the renewables transition, energy prices, and environmental issues. But it was not the only race of this election cycle.
Heatmap has been keeping tabs on 36 of the most important climate elections, from seats in the House and Senate down to local ballot measures and attorneys general. Though this is far from an exhaustive list of races that will touch the climate this year, we hope it’ll help you piece together how and where climate-related issues are resonating with voters around the country.
A few notes on how this list is organized:
Some key races remain undecided as of Thursday morning. While Republicans took control of the Senate, the House is still up for grabs.
Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans* vs. Democrat Missy Cotter Smasal
Status: 🔴Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans wins
Kiggans, the vice chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus and a Trump ally, won her reelection in a tight race. She beat Democrat Missy Cotter Smasal in a swingy district with a diverse electorate of young voters, a robust LGBTQ community, and many military families. Kiggans backed the Default on America Act to repeal clean energy tax credits and has flip-flopped on her support of offshore wind (Kiggans says she supports it, despite voting to slash IRA incentives for the project) while her opponent had called climate change a crisis in need of “urgent action” and bipartisan solutions.
Governor
Republican Mark Robinson vs. Democrat Attorney General Josh Stein
Status: 🔵 Democrat Attorney General Josh Stein wins
North Carolina Attorney General Stein has won the election for governor. The state suffered one of the costliest storms in U.S. history earlier this year due to the flooding from Hurricane Helene, which drew attention to the divide between the two candidates who’d been running for the state’s highest office. Republican Mark Robinson called climate change “junk science” and said he’d attempt to block history and science from being taught in the first through fifth grades. He’d also said not pursuing the development of fossil fuels is an affront to God, and that he’d attempt to keep the “climate change cabal” in “chains.” By contrast, Stein had proposed a path to reach carbon neutrality in the state by 2050 and has a history of taking on polluters and Big Oil price gougers.
Commissioner of Insurance
Republican Mike Causey* vs. Democrat Natasha Marcus
Status: 🔴 Republican Mike Causey wins
Incumbent Republican Insurance Commissioner Causey has successfully fended off a challenge from the Climate Cabinet- backed state Senator Marcus, who took on Causey on the grounds that he’d approved too many rate increases and was too cozy with the companies he was in charge of regulating. Marcus had pushed for greater investment in home hardening and outraised Causey nearly twice over. While insurance commissioner isn’t the sexiest race, the election drew outsized attention in part because of Nationwide’s decision not to renew thousands of homeowner policies in eastern North Carolina in 2023 due to climate change, and the devastating flooding earlier this year from Hurricane Helene.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown* vs. Republican Bernie Moreno
Status: 🔴Republican Bernie Moreno wins
MAGA Republican Bernie Moreno has flipped the seat of three-term Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Combined with Republican Jim Justice winning outgoing Democratic Senator Joe Manchin’s seat earlier in the night, Brown’s loss makes it unlikely that Democrats retain control of the Senate. Climate and energy had not played a significant role in the race between Brown and Moreno, though Brown, who once voiced support for a Green New Deal, had broken in recent months with his Democratic colleagues on the IRA’s tax credit for EVs (which he says does not do enough to crack down on imported materials from China and Indonesia), backed overturning the Environmental Protection Agency’s new power plant regulations and tailpipe rules (which are “unrealistic” and a strain on the grid, he said), and joined Manchin in criticizing the Biden administration’s clean hydrogen tax credit. Moreno has stressed that “we need natural gas, we need oil” rather than “this move toward windmills, solar panels.”
Ohio’s 9th Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur* vs. Republican state Rep. Derek Merrin
Status: Pending
The race in Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, which includes Toledo and the shores of Lake Erie, is about many things, but it’s also about algae. Kaptur sits on the House Appropriations Committee, where she has supported clean energy-related spending, and she’s also the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development appropriations subcommittee, where she fought for a $1.5 million federal project to combat warming-induced algal blooms in the Great Lakes. Her opponent, Merrin, voted against that bill as a state representative and for laws that would label methane as green energy. She claimed Kaptur and other Democrats’ clean energy pursuits threaten affordability and reliability.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.* vs. Republican David McCormick
Status: 🔴Republican David McCormick wins
McCormick flipped the Pennsylvania Senate seat for Republicans in one of the most energy- and climate-centric races of the year. During the campaign, McCormick had painted the incumbent, Casey, as an enemy of fracking by tying him to Kamala Harris’ prior opposition to the industry. Casey, however, has always supported what he calls “responsible fracking,” including the proposed hydrogen hubs in the state (one of which would use fracked gas). McCormick, whose wife sits on the board of Exxon, has said renewable energy is making the U.S. more reliant on materials from China and that we “need to get back to the energy policies under President Trump,” including by repealing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and gutting the Inflation Reduction Act.
Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Susan Wild* vs. Republican state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie
Status: 🔴Republican state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie wins
Wild conceded her race Wednesday morning to Mackenzie, a Republican lawmaker who had slammed her repeatedly for voting for the “failed” IRA while on the campaign trail. As a state representative, Mackenzie had also voted against environmental and clean energy measures, including rooftop solar panels for schools. In her concession speech, Wild stressed the importance of the continued fight for a “clean and safe planet.”
Attorney General
Democrat Eugene DePasquale vs. Republican Dave Sunday
Status: 🔴Republican Dave Sunday wins
Sunday had not spoken about climate-related issues during the campaign and didn’t respond to a request for comment on the matter from The Philadelphia Citizen. However the next attorney general of Pennsylvania has an opportunity to pursue climate liability litigation during their term, with Bucks County suing the fossil fuel industry for misleading the public about the dangers of burning oil and gas, E&E News reports. DePasquale, who lost the race, had said he considers environmental justice a top priority.
Referred Law 21
Opportunity: To take a stance on carbon pipelines
Voters in South Dakota rejected a bill passed by their state legislature earlier this year that imposed a number of regulations on potential CO2 pipelines, including a modest $1-per-foot surcharge and requirements about minimum depth. Opponents wary of the carbon capture technology had forced the ballot measure on the law, which they claimed was a giveaway to pipeline companies since it gave the state’s Public Utilities Commissioners the ability to override local ordinances and zoning laws meant to block the pipeline. The rejection of Referred Law 21 will have major implications for the $8 billion Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline, which would collect CO2 from regional ethanol plants and deliver it to an injection well in North Dakota as a means of dealing with planet-warming emissions. The uncertainty around whether or not Referred Law 21 would pass is part of why the project is one of Heatmap’s most at-risk energy transition proposals.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego vs. Republican Kari Lake
Status: Pending
Democrats will need a win in the Grand Canyon State if they have any chance of holding the Senate. While the pitch to undecided voters in Arizona has centered on reproductive and LGBTQ rights, Gallego helped to pass the Inflation Reduction Act in the House and has posited himself as a defender of Arizona’s public lands, water, and energy transition. Lake, a close ally of Trump’s, has boosted falsehoods about wind turbines killing an outsized number of birds and whales, and blamed the state’s heat deaths on drug overdoses. She has called climate change “fake science” and told voters that she’s “not going to be afraid of the weather.”
Arizona’s 1st Congressional District
Republican Rep. David Schweikert* vs. Democrat Amish Shah
Status: Pending
Arizona’s 1st congressional district, covering northeastern Phoenix and Scottsdale, was considered “ reliably Republican” for Schweikert’s first seven terms, but he’s facing a formidable challenge from Shah, a former ER doctor, in the recently redrawn district. Schweikert has taken a more moderate position on the energy transition than other Republicans in the state, arguing that “the government must stop picking winners and losers in the industry” but “we also should continue to expand into renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, and geothermal.” Shah, who green groups like the Sierra Club endorse, has pushed for a “healthier Arizona” by standing up to polluters and protecting Arizona’s public lands. This race is one of several that could decide control of the U.S. House.
Arizona’s 6th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani* vs. Democrat Kirsten Engel
Status: Pending
Another close race that could decide control of the House is in the Tucson suburbs. Ciscomani is a Trump-endorsed moderate who voted against the IRA but has been friendlier on issues like residential solar projects. Engel’s team has positioned itself as better on water issues than Ciscomani and willing to stand up to foreign mining companies interested in the state’s copper resources.
The Arizona Corporation Commission
Opportunity: Flip three seats from Republicans
Status: Pending
The commission regulates utilities in the state, and in recent years it has actively dismantled clean energy policy and standards with particular aggression toward community solar. Arizona voters have an opportunity to elect representatives who will vote on rules for virtual power plants and can block the repeal of the state’s renewable energy and efficiency standards. There are three Democrats, two Green Party candidates, and three Republicans running for three of the commission’s five total seats.
Colorado’s 8th Congressional District
Democratic Rep. Yadira Caraveo* vs. Republican Gabe Evans
Status: Pending
Though the race in Colorado’s 8th congressional district has focused on the fentanyl and border crises, it encompasses the northern suburbs of Denver, including parts of the oil-and-gas-rich Front Range, where the fossil fuel industry has degraded local air quality for decades. Caraveo’s challenger Evans has dismissed “climate alarmism” and has a 0% score from Conservation Colorado for his “no” votes on everything from regulating toxic “forever chemicals” to transportation infrastructure development to holding gas companies accountable for their environmental impacts. Caraveo, a former pediatrician, has cited air pollution's impact on her patients as one of her motivations for running for office.
Iowa’s 1st Congressional District
Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks* vs. Democrat Christina Bohannan
Status: Pending
Miller-Meeks, who represents the southeasternmost part of the state, also chairs the Conservative Climate Caucus and is a more moderate “ all of the above” energy supporter. Democrats, however, see the race as an opportunity to flip a seat in the House via Bohannan and have out-raised the Republican renewable energy advocate by a 2-to-1 margin, E&E News reports. Bohannan has attacked Miller-Meeks for slow-walking action on addressing climate change through her soft hand with the oil and gas industry.
Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Zach Nunn* vs. Democrat Lanon Baccam
Status: 🔴Republican Rep. Zach Nunn wins
Democrats in Iowa were hoping for another potential pick-up in the swingy 3rd Congressional District, which includes parts of Des Moines and the Missouri border. Nunn made tax cuts a central component of his re-election bid, and he also voted to repeal tax credits for clean energy three times and bashed the IRA as “telling Iowans you should spend less, you should tighten your belt, but we're gonna go ahead and print off more money and spend more your tax dollars on projects.”
The Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment
Opportunity: Requiring that federal reserves received by the state for alternative and renewable energy production off its coast go toward protecting the state’s oceanfronts
Status: 🟢 Passed
Louisiana voters opted to require that federal reserve revenue raised from renewable energy production in federal waters off its coast go into a fund that supports coastal restoration projects, including the construction of levees and protection of barrier islands. (Federal revenues received by oil and gas in the state already support this fund.) The Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund has been around since Hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005, but most of its money came from damages paid after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those funds will be exhausted by the end of 2031. Proponents argued the amendment is necessary to protect Louisiana’s coasts from worsening storms and rising sea levels, though opponents said it’s more important to keep the funds flexible for any legislative priorities that may arise.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin vs. Republican Mike Rogers
Status: 🔵Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin wins
Despite Democrats’ poor performance in many of Tuesday night’s Senate races, Rep. Elissa Slotkin managed to hold a seat for the party by winning the race to replace outgoing Senator Debbie Stabenow. Her campaign against Republican Mike Rogers had become a referendum on the state’s electric vehicle manufacturing industry, with Rogers alleging Slotkin and other Democrats support a (nonexistent) “EV mandate” that destroys jobs (it doesn’t). The arguments had put Slotkin on her back foot, however: She ran ads telling voters she doesn’t own an electric car.
Michigan’s 8th Congressional District
Republican Paul Junge vs. Democrat state Sen.Kristen McDonald Rivet
Status: 🔵Democrat state Sen.Kristen McDonald Rivet wins
Green groups like the LCV Victory Fund and Climate Power poured money and volunteer hours into picking up Michigan’s 8th Congressional District for Democrats, and on Tuesday their work paid off. McDonald Rivet has an impressive climate record, which includes helping to pass Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s 100% renewable energy bill while serving as a state senator. She has also fought for flood reduction infrastructure and lead pipe replacement funding in a district that includes Flint. Meanwhile, Junge dismissed solar and wind energy as not being “dependable,” talked up “clean coal” and expanding oil and gas leasing on public lands, and advocated for resuming construction on the Keystone Pipeline and maintaining the controversial Line 5 crude oil pipeline.
Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Don Bacon* vs. Democrat state Sen. Tony Vargas
Status: Pending
State Senator Tony Vargas is challenging the incumbent legislator in a district that includes Nebraska’s “blue dot” of Omaha. Though the race has centered mainly on issues like abortion, tax cuts, and immigration, Vargas is a former Earth sciences teacher who openly talks about combatting climate change and investing in clean energy (he even cosponsored a bill arguing the state Legislature has a “moral obligation” to do something about the issue). While in office, Bacon voted to repeal tax credits for wind and solar energy, and he’s chalked up extreme weather as having “cyclical impacts.”
New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District
Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez* vs. Republican Yvette Herrell
Status: 🔵 Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez wins
Democrat Rep. Vasquez managed to fend off a challenge from Republican Herrell, whose seat he flipped in the super swingy 2nd congressional district of New Mexico two years ago. The district includes a large swath of the oil-rich Permian Basin, and Vasquez had walked the line between promoting wind and solar manufacturing as part of the IRA while also “looking out for those fossil fuel communities.” Herrell had said that renewable subsidies create “unfair” competition for oil and gas businesses, and she has a 0% lifetime score from LCV for such positions as voting in favor of rolling back access to public land.
New York’s 4th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Anthony D’Esposito* vs. Democrat Laura Gillen
Status: 🔵Democrat Laura Gillen wins
Gillen unseated D’Esposito in New York’s 4th Congressional District, which represents the southern part of Nassau County and is the second-wealthiest in the state. A Trump ally, D’Esposito had opposed local offshore wind projects as being “landscape-altering” and had helped to expand offshore drilling. Gillen previously lost to D’Esposito in 2022, but this time, she had played up her experience helping Hempstead recover from Hurricane Sandy and pushed for the protection of the district’s coastlines.
New York’s 17th Congressional District
Republican Rep. Mike Lawler* vs. Democrat Mondaire Jones
Status: 🔴Rep. Mike Lawler wins
Elon Musk’s PAC dumped money into the race to help Lawler win New York’s 17th Congressional District. Located just north of the liberal bastion of New York City, New York’s 17th Congressional District was safely controlled by Democrats until 2020’s infamous redistricting. Though the map was again redrawn for the 2024 election, NY-17 went virtually untouched in a “win” for Lawler. Besides being a critical race for control of the House, NY-17 also pitted Lawler, a co-sponsor of the Energy Choice Act aiming to protect natural gas, against Jones, who represented a former iteration of the district and supported congestion pricing (except for Lower Hudson Valley residents, of course) and the build-out of renewables. The candidates diverge on their opinion of the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which Lawler called “foolish;” Jones, somewhat out of step with his party, opposes nuclear power.
Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District
Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden* vs. Democrat Rebecca Cooke
Status: 🔴Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden wins
Republican incumbent Derrick Van Orden won his reelection campaign for Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District — which covers the exurbs of the Twin Cities and much of the southwestern part of the state — after making gas and energy prices a staple of his campaign. In addition to promoting increased domestic energy production, Van Orden is a member of the Congressional Biofuels Caucus and has pushed for renewable ethanol and sustainable aviation fuel, while at the same time stressing that tax dollars should not go toward “subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles.” He was also present in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 to attend the Stop the Steal rally that turned into an assault on the U.S. Capitol. His opponent, Cooke, had said she’d prioritize investment in clean energy infrastructure and new high-speed rail in Wisconsin and addressing PFAS in water.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Sen. Jon Tester* vs. Republican Tim Sheehy
Status: 🔴Republican Tim Sheehy wins
The LCV Victory Fund named Sheehy as one of its “dirty dozen” priority targets due to his advocacy for privatizing public lands and calling climate change the belief of a leftist cult. Tester, meanwhile, has been described as a “hero” of green groups due to his support of renewable tax credits and stated dreams of owning an electric tractor. Though it had already become apparent that Democrats would lose control of the Senate by the time the race was called, Tester’s defeat is nevertheless a stinging blow to climate advocates who hoped to maintain an advantage there.
Attorney General
Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen* vs. Democrat Ben Alke
Status: 🔴Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen wins
Knudsen leads the state’s case against the 16 young plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, who are suing lawmakers for allegedly violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” as enshrined in the state’s constitution. Alke, the Democratic challenger, had the support of Montana Conservation Voters for his prior work in environmental law, including attempts to make public lands less accessible. Though a state panel recently recommended that he be suspended from practicing law for 90 days due to ethics violations, E&E News reported, in the end he carried the race by nearly 20 points.
The Montana Public Service Commission
Opportunity: Electing Independent Elena Evans to the commission
Status: 🟡 Failed
The three open seats on Montana’s PSC remained in Republican control, with incumbent Republican Jennifer Fielder holding out against her challenger, Elena Evans, a geologist and political Independent, who came in fourth. Their race had focused on energy affordability, especially after the Republican commission okayed a 28% rate increase for Northwestern Energy, the biggest utility in the state, last year. Evans had said she’d look closer at building climate resiliency into the state’s grid, while Fielder won on the message that it isn’t her place to weigh in on climate as a utility regulator.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Rep. Jacky Rosen vs. Republican Sam Brown
Status: Pending
Nevada’s junior senator, Jacky Rosen, is a clean energy enthusiast who helped pass the IRA and attempted to expand solar and geothermal energy within the Silver State. Brown has said he would not have supported the IRA and stood disagrees within the way of solar development in the state as a TK IN WHAT ROLE DID HE DO THIS?, while calling for expanding investment in fossil fuels. Brown also said he wants to cut the Department of Energy and any “environmental departments and agencies.”
Portland City Council
Opportunity: Portland voters are electing an entirely new city council and have the chance to choose representatives who will support the Portland Clean Energy Fund
Status: Pending
Portland has a new voting system for all new city council districts, meaning voters in Oregon’s biggest city will elect an entirely new set of representatives this fall. Lead Locally is backing five candidates in the race, including the executive director of an environmental justice group (Candace Avalos) and an energy economist for Bonneville Power Administration (Mitch Green). The next city council will make decisions about the fate of the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which allocates money for clean energy projects, and will weigh whether or not to transition away from fossil fuel infrastructure — namely, the Zenith Energy crude oil shipment facility and rail line in northwest Portland, which is an earthquake risk and contributes to the area’s poor air quality.
At stake is the continued progress of the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which allocates money for clean energy projects, as well as the potential closure of the Zenith Energy crude oil shipment facility in northwest Portland.
Measure 6-219 (Coos County) and Measure 8-116 (Curry County)
Opportunity: To directly express community opposition to offshore wind
Status: 🟡 Passed
Voters in two counties on the southern Oregon Coast expressed overwhelming opposition to offshore wind development in their region. The November ballots in Coos and Curry counties included a non-binding question intended to take the community’s temperature on potential offshore wind projects. More than 60% of Coos County voters registered their feelings against the development of offshore wind projects, while nearly 80% of Curry County voters objected specifically to floating offshore wind.
Proposition 4
Opportunity: Authorizes $10 billion in bonds for water quality, coastal resilience projects, wildfire prevention, and climate-risk protections
Californians have approved a proposition that will issue $10 billion in bonds, which will largely go toward infrastructure projects aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change, with at least 40% of the funds earmarked for disadvantaged communities. The bill had been backed by organizations like CALFIRE and the National Wildlife Federation and was opposed by Republicans for being unfocused and adding to the state deficit.
Measure GG (Berkeley)
Opportunity: Adopting a tax on natural gas use in most buildings over 15,000 square feet
Status: 🟡 Failed
Over two-thirds of voters in Berkeley rejected a ballot measure backed by climate and labor groups that would have authorized a tax of $2.9647 per therm of natural gas in large buildings, with the funds going toward decarbonization programs. The ballot measure had been an attempt to functionally reinstate the city’s first-in-the-nation prohibition against gas hookups in new buildings, which a federal appeals court struck down last spring. Supporters of Measure GG had raised almost $72,000 by the end of September, while the no campaign — backed by real estate groups that said the tax was prohibitively expensive for small businesses, nonprofits, schools, and grocery stores — had raised $131,000 at the end of September.
Initiative 2117
Opportunity: To vote against repealing the state’s cap and invest program
Status: 🟡 Failed
The Republican-backed effort to repeal Washington state’s new cap and invest program has failed. Both the “no” and “yes” campaigns poured money into their respective sides, making the issue the most expensive ballot measure campaign of this election cycle. If I-2117 had passed, it would have left a gaping hole in the state’s revenue for transit projects, decarbonization initiatives, and clean air and water programs.
Initiative 2066
Opportunity: To support Washington’s transition away from natural gas
Status: Pending
Washingtonians will also vote on I-2066, which would prevent the state from incentivizing a transition from natural gas. The initiative would also jeopardize opportunities to promote thermal energy networks as a gas alternative and bar cities and towns, as well as Washington’s energy code, from “prohibiting, penalizing, or discouraging” gas appliances in buildings, imperiling programs like Seattle’s 2050 net-zero emissions target.
U.S. House Alaska At-Large District
Democrat Rep. Mary Peltola* vs. Republican Nick Begich III
Status: Pending
Peltola has played nice with the fossil fuel industry — defending the Biden administration’s reversal on the Willow Project and supporting the construction of a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline — but she also boasts an 88% score from the League of Conservation Voters due to her otherwise environmentally friendly voting record, has advocated for more tribal involvement in the environmental review process, and she sits on the influential House Natural Resource Committee. Begich has pitched himself to voters as the better candidate for Alaska’s oil and gas industry, which he claims is besieged by Democrats like Peltola. This race is one of several that could decide control of the U.S. House.
Question 1 (Honolulu)
Opportunity: Would designate 0.5% of property taxes to a Climate Resiliency Fund
Status: 🟢 Passed
Honolulu residents were asked whether they want to create a Climate Resiliency Fund with money raised by half a percent of the city’s property taxes. Advocates argued that the waterfront city needs to prioritize climate the same way it prioritizes affordable housing and the environment, both of which also have funds that receive a half percent of property taxes. Opponents said the creation of an exclusive climate fund will make the revenue less flexible in the case of an unforeseen crisis like rising homelessness or COVID-19, while others worried any shortfalls in the city budget caused by the creation of the fund will result in a rise in property taxes. Honolulu residents approved the measure by a wide margin, with 58% voting in favor, according to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the correct site of the injection well for the Summit carbon pipeline.
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 EV-maker is now a culture war totem, plus some AI.
During Alan Greenspan’s decade-plus run leading the Federal Reserve, investors and the financial media were convinced that there was a “Greenspan put” underlying the stock market. The basic idea was that if the markets fell too much or too sharply, the Fed would intervene and put a floor on prices analogous to a “put” option on a stock, which allows an investor to sell a stock at a specific price, even if it’s currently selling for less. The existence of this put — which was, to be clear, never a stated policy — was thought to push stock prices up, as it gave investors more confidence that their assets could only fall so far.
While current Fed Chair Jerome Powell would be loath to comment on a specific volatile security, we may be seeing the emergence of a kind of sociopolitical put for Tesla, one coming from the White House and conservative media instead of the Federal Reserve.
The company’s high-flying stock shed over $100 billion of value on Monday, falling around 15% and leaving the price down around 50% from its previous all-time high. While the market as a whole also swooned, especially high-value technology companies like Nvidia and Meta, Tesla was the worst hit. Analysts attributed the particularly steep fall to concerns that CEO Elon Musk was spending too much time in Washington, and that the politicization of the brand had made it toxic to buyers in Europe and among liberals in the United States.
Then the cavalry came in. Sean Hannity told his Fox News audience that he had bought a Model S, while President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American.” By this afternoon, Trump had turned the White House lawn into a sales floor for Musk’s electric vehicles. Tesla shares closed the day up almost 4%, while the market overall closed down after Trump and his advisors’ furious whiplash policy pronouncements on tariffs.
Whether the Tesla put succeeds remains to be seen. The stock is still well, well below its all-time highs, but it may confirm a new way to understand Tesla — not as a company that sells electric vehicles to people concerned about climate change, but rather as a conservative culture war totem that has also made sizable investments in artificial intelligence and robotics.
When Musk bought Twitter and devoted more of his time, energy, money, and public pronouncements to right wing politics, some observers thought that maybe he could lift the dreadful image of electric vehicles among Trump voters. But when Pew did a survey on public attitudes towards electric vehicles back in 2023, it found that “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, younger adults, and people living in urban areas are among the most likely to say they would consider purchasing an EV” — hardly a broad swathe of Trump’s America. More than two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said they weren’t interested in buying an electric car, compared to 30% of Democrats.
On the campaign trail, Trump regularly lambasted EVs, although by the end of the campaign, as Musk’s support became more voluminous, he’s lightened up a bit. In any case, the Biden administration’s pro-electric-vehicle policies were an early target for the Trump administration, and the consumer subsidies for EVs passed under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act are widely considered to be one of the softest targets for repeal.
But newer data shows that the tide may be turning, not so much for electric vehicles, but likely for Tesla itself.
The Wall Street Journalreported survey data last week showing that only 13% of Democrats would consider buying a Tesla, down from 23% from August of 2023, while 26% of Republicans would consider buying a Tesla, up from 15%. Vehicle registration data cited by the Journal suggested a shift in new Tesla purchases from liberal urban areas such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, towards more conservative-friendly metropolises like Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Miami.
At the same time, many Tesla investors appear to be mostly seeing through the gyrations in the famously volatile stock and relatively unconcerned about month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter sales data. After all, even after the epic fall in Tesla’s stock price, the company is still worth over $700 billion, more than Toyota, General Motors, and Ford combined, each of which sells several times more cars per year than Tesla.
Many investors simply do not view Tesla as a luxury or mass market automaker, instead seeing it as an artificial intelligence and robotics company. When I speak to individual Tesla shareholders, they’re always telling me how great Full Self-Driving is, not how many cars they expect the company to sell in August. In many cases, Musk has made Tesla stockholders a lot of money, so they’re willing to cut him tremendous slack and generally believe that he has the future figured out.
Longtime Tesla investor Ron Baron, who bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shares from 2014 to 2016, told CNBC Tuesday morning, that Musk “believes that digitization [and] autonomy is going to be driving the future. And he thinks we’re … on the verge of having an era of incredible abundance.”Baron also committed that he hasn’t, won’t, and will never sell. “I’m the last in, I’ll be the last out. So I won’t sell a single share personally until I sell all the shares for clients, and that’s what I’ve done.”
Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives, one of the biggest Tesla bulls on the street, has told clients that he expects Tesla’s valuation to exceed $2 trillion, and that its self-driving and robotics business “will represent 90% of the valuation.”
Another longtime Tesla bull, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, told clients in a note Monday that Tesla remained a “Top Pick,” and that his price target was still $430, compared to the stock’s $230.58 close price on the day. His bull case, he said, was $800, which would give the company a valuation over $2.5 trillion.
When the stock lags, Jonas wrote, investors see Tesla as a car company. “In December with the stock testing $500/share, the prevailing sentiment was that the company is an AI ‘winner’ with untapped exposure to embodied AI expressions such as humanoid robotics,” Jonas wrote. “Today with the stock down 50% our investor conversations are focused on management distraction, brand degradation and lost auto sales.”
In a note to clients Tuesday, Ives beseeched Musk to “step up as CEO,” and lamented that there has been “little to no sign of Musk at any Tesla factory or manufacturing facility the last two months.” But his bullishness for Tesla was undaunted. He argued that the scheduled launch of unsupervised Full Self-Driving in June “kicks off the autonomous era at Tesla that we value at $1 trillion alone on a sum-of-the-parts valuation.”
“Autonomous will be the biggest transformation to the auto industry in modern day history,” Ives wrote, “and in our view Tesla will own the autonomous market in the U.S. and globally.”
The most effective put of all may not be anything Trump says or does, but rather investors’ optimism about the future — as long as it’s Elon Musk’s future.
The uncertainty created by Trump’s erratic policymaking could not have come at a worse time for the industry.
This is the second story in a Heatmap series on the “green freeze” under Trump.
Climate tech investment rode to record highs during the Biden administration, supercharged by a surge in ESG investing and net-zero commitments, the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act, and at least initially, low interest rates. Though the market had already dropped somewhat from its recent peak, climate tech investors told me that the Trump administration is now shepherding in a detrimental overcorrection. The president’s fossil fuel-friendly rhetoric, dubiously legal IIJA and IRA funding freezes, and aggressive tariffs, have left climate tech startups in the worst possible place: a state of deep uncertainty.
“Uncertainty is the enemy of economic progress,” Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, told me.
The lack of clarity is understandably causing investors to throw on the brakes. “We’ve talked internally about, let’s be a little bit more cautious, let’s be a little more judicious with our dollars right now,” Gabriel Kra, co-founder at the climate tech firm Prelude Ventures, told me. “We’re not out in the market, but I would think this would be a really tough time to try and go out and raise a new fund.”
This reluctance comes at a particularly bad time for climate tech startups, many of which are now reaching a point where they are ready to scale up and build first-of-a-kind infrastructure projects and factories. That takes serious capital, the kind that wasn’t as necessary during Trump’s first term, or even much of Biden’s, when many of these companies were in a more nascent research and development or proof-of-concept stage.
I also heard from investors that the pace of Trump’s actions and the extent of the economic upheaval across every sector feels unique this time around. “We’re entering a pretty different economic construct,” Beebe told me, citing the swirling unknowns around how Trump’s policies will impact economic indicators such as inflation and interest rates. “We haven’t seen this kind of economic warfare in decades,” he said.
Even before Trump took office, it was notoriously difficult for climate companies to raise funding in the so-called “missing middle,” when startups are too mature for early-stage venture capital but not mature enough for traditional infrastructure investors to take a bet on them. This is exactly the point at which government support — say, a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office or a grant from the DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations — could be most useful in helping a company prove its commercial viability.
But now that Trump has frozen funding — even some that’s been contractually obligated — companies are left with fewer options than ever to reach scale.
One investor who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak more openly told me that “a lot of the missing middle companies are living in a dicier world.” A 2023 white paper on “capital imbalances in the energy transition” from S2G Investments, a firm that supports both early-stage and growth-stage companies, found that from 2017 to 2022, only 20% of climate capital flowed toward companies at this critical inflection point, while 43% went to early-stage companies and 37% towards established technologies. For companies at this precarious growth stage, a funding delay on the order of months could be the difference between life and death, the investor added. Many of these companies may also be reliant on debt financing, they explained. “Unless they’ve been extremely disciplined, they could run into a situation where they’re just not able to service that debt.”
The months or even years that it could take for Trump’s rash funding rescission to wind through the courts will end up killing some companies, Beebe told me. “And unfortunately, that’s what people on the other side of this debate would like, is just to litigate and escalate. And even if they ultimately lose, they’ve won, because startups just don’t have the balance sheets that big companies would,” he explained.
Kra’s Prelude Ventures has a number of prominent companies in its portfolio that have benefitted from DOE grants. This includes Electric Hydrogen, which received a $43.3 million DOE grant to scale electrolyzer manufacturing; Form Energy, which received $150 million to help build a long-duration battery storage manufacturing plant; Boston Metal, which was awarded $50 million for a green steel facility; and Heirloom, which is a part of the $600 million Project Cypress Direct Air Capture hub. DOE funding is often doled out in tranches, with some usually provided upfront and further payments tied to specific project milestones. So even if a grant has officially been awarded, that doesn’t mean all of the funding has been disbursed, giving the Trump administration an opening to break government contracts and claw it back.
Kra told me that a few of his firm’s companies were on the verge of securing government funding before Trump took office, or have a project in the works that is now on hold. “We and the board are working closely with those companies to figure out what to do,” he told me. “If the mandates or supports aren’t there for that company, you’ve got to figure out how to make that cash last a bunch longer so you can still meet some commercially meaningful milestones.”
In this environment, Kra said his firm will be taking a closer look at companies that claim they will be able to attract federal funds. “Let’s make sure we understand what they can do without that non-dilutive capital, without those grants, without that project level support,” he told me, noting that “several” companies in his portfolio will also be impacted by Trump’s ever-changing tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Prelude Ventures is working with its portfolio companies to figure how to “smooth out the hit,” Kra told me later via email, but inevitably the tariffs “will affect the prices consumers pay in the short and long run.”
While investors can’t avoid the impacts of all government policies and impulses, the growth-stage firm G2 Venture Partners has long tried to inoculate itself against the vicissitudes of government financing. “None of our companies actually have any exposure to DOE loans,” Brook Porter, a partner and co-founder at G2, told me in an email, nor have they received government grants. If you add up the revenue from all of the companies in G2’s portfolio, which is made up mainly of sustainability-focused startups, only about 3% “has any exposure to the IRA,” Porter told me. So even if the law’s generous clean energy tax credits are slashed or the programs it supports are left to languish, G2’s companies will likely soldier on.
Then there are the venture capitalists themselves. Many of the investors I spoke with emphasized that not all firms will have the ability or will to weather this storm. “I definitely believe many generalist funds who dabbled in climate will pull back,” Beebe told me. Porter agreed. “The generalists are much more interested in AI, then I think in climate,” he said. It’s not as if there’s been a rash of generalist investors announcing pullbacks, though Kra told me he knows of “a couple of firms” that are rethinking their climate investment strategies, potentially opting to fold these investments under an umbrella category such as “hard tech” instead of highlighting a sectoral focus on energy or climate, specifically.
Last month, the investment firm Coatue, which has about $70 billion in assets under management, raised around $250 million for a climate-focused fund, showing it’s not all doom and gloom for the generalists’ climate ambitions. But Porter told me this is exactly the type of large firm he wouldexpect to back out soon, citing Tiger Global Management and Softbank as others that started investing heavily during climate tech’s boom years from 2020 to 2022 that he could imagine winding down that line of business.
Strategic investors such as oil companies have also been quick to dial back their clean energy ambitions and refocus their sights on the fossil fuels championed by the Trump administration. “Corporate venture is very cyclical,” Beebe told me, explaining that large companies tend to make venture investments when they have excess budget or when a sector looks hot, but tighten the purse strings during periods of uncertainty.
But Cody Simms, a managing partner at the climate tech investment firm MCJ, told me that at the moment, he actually sees the corporate venture ecosystem as “quite strong and quite active.” The firm’s investments include the low-carbon cement company Sublime Systems, which last year got strategic backing from two of the world’s largest building materials companies, and the methane capture company Windfall Bio, which has received strategic funding from Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund. Simms noted that this momentum could represent an overexuberance among corporations who just recently stood up their climate-focused venture arms, and “we’ll see if it continues into the next few years.”
Notably, Sublime and Windfall Bio both also have millions in DOE grants, and another of MCJ’s portfolio companies, bio-based chemicals maker Solugen, has a “conditional commitment” from the LPO for a loan guarantee of over $200 million. Since that money isn’t yet obligated, there’s a good chance it might never actually materialize, which could stall construction on the company’s in-progress biomanufacturing facility.
Simms told me that the main thing he’s encouraging MCJ’s portfolio companies to do at this stage is to contact their local representatives — not to advocate for climate action in general, but rather “to push on the very specific tax credit that they are planning to use and to talk about how it creates jobs locally in their districts.”
Getting startups to shift the narrative away from decarbonization and climate and toward their multitudinous co-benefits — from energy security to supply chain resilience — is of course a strategy many are already deploying to one degree or another. And investors were quick to remind me that the landscape may not be quite as bleak as it appears.
“We’ve made more investments, and we have a pipeline of more attractive investments now than we have in the last couple of years,” Porter told me. That’s because in spite of whatever havoc the Trump administration is wreaking, a lot of climate tech companies are reaching a critical juncture that could position the sector overall for “a record number of IPOs this year and next,” Porter said. The question is, “will these macro uncertainties — political, economic, financial uncertainty — hold companies back from going public?”
As with so many economic downturns and periods of instability, investors also see this as a moment for the true blue startups and venture capitalists to prove their worth and business acumen in an environment that’s working against them. “Now we have the hardcore founders, the people who really are driven by building economically viable, long-term, massively impactful companies, and the investors who understand the markets very well, coming together around clean business models that aren’t dependent on swinging from one subsidy vine to the next subsidy vine,” Beebe told me.
“There is no opportunity that’s an absolute no, even in this current situation, across the entire space,” the anonymous climate tech investor told me. “And so this might be one of the most important points — I won’t say a high point, necessarily — but it might be a moment of truth that the energy transition needs to embrace.”
On the energy secretary’s keynote, Ontario’s electricity surcharge, and record solar power
Current conditions: Critical fire weather returns to New Mexico and Texas and will remain through Saturday • Sharks have been spotted in flooded canals along Australia’s Gold Coast after Cyclone Alfred dropped more than two feet of rain • A tanker carrying jet fuel is still burning after it collided with a cargo ship in the North Sea yesterday. The ship was transporting toxic chemicals that could devastate ecosystems along England’s northeast coast.
In a keynote speech at the energy industry’s annual CERAWeek conference, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told executives and policymakers that the Trump administration sees climate change as “a side effect of building the modern world,” and said that “everything in life involves trade-offs." He pledged to “end the Biden administration’s irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change” and insisted he’s not a climate change denier, but rather a “climate realist.” According toThe New York Times, “Mr. Wright’s speech was greeted with enthusiastic applause.” Wright also reportedly told fossil fuel bosses he intended to speed up permitting for their projects.
Other things overheard at Day 1 of CERAWeek:
The premier of Canada’s Ontario province announced he is hiking fees on electricity exported to the U.S. by 25%, escalating the trade war kicked off by President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods, including a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. The decision could affect prices in Minnesota, New York, and Michigan, which get some of their electricity from the province. Ontario Premier Doug Ford estimated the surcharge will add about $70 to the monthly bills of affected customers. “I will not hesitate to increase this charge,” Ford said. “If the United States escalates, I will not hesitate to shut the electricity off completely.” The U.S. tariffs went into effect on March 4. Trump issued another 30-day pause just days later, but Ford said Ontario “will not relent” until the threat of tariffs is gone for good.
There was a lot of news from the White House yesterday that relates to climate and the energy transition. Here’s a quick rundown:
The EPA cancelled hundreds of environmental justice grants: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency nixed 400 grants across environmental justice programs and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs worth $1.7 billion. Zeldin said this round of cuts “was our biggest yet.”
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded Biden memos about infrastructure projects: The two memos encouraged states to prioritize climate change resilience in infrastructure projects funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and to include under-represented groups when planning projects.
The military ended funding for climate studies: This one technically broke on Friday. The Department of Defense is scrapping its funding for social science research, which covers climate change studies. In a post on X, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said DOD “does not do climate change crap. We do training and war fighting.”
Meanwhile, a second nonprofit – the Coalition for Green Capital – filed a lawsuit against Citibank over climate grant money awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act but frozen by Zeldin’s EPA. Climate United filed a similar lawsuit (but targeting the EPA, as well as Citibank) on Saturday.
A new report from the Princeton ZERO Lab’s REPEAT Project examines the potential consequences of the Trump administration’s plans to kill existing EV tax credits and repeal EPA tailpipe regulations. It finds that, compared to a scenario in which the current policies are kept in place:
“In other words, killing the IRA tax credits for EVs will decimate the nascent renaissance in vehicle and battery manufacturing investment and employment we’re currently seeing play out across the United States,” said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor and expert in energy systems engineering and policy at Princeton University and head of the REPEAT Project. (Jenkins is also the co-host of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast.)
REPEAT Project
The U.S. installed nearly 50 gigawatts of new solar power capacity last year, up 21% from 2023, according to a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie. That’s a record, and the largest annual grid capacity increase from any energy technology in the U.S. in more than 20 years. Combined with storage, solar represents 84% of all new grid capacity added in 2024.
SEIA and Wood Mackenzie
Last year was “the year of materialization of the IRA,” with supply chains becoming more resilient and interest from utilities and corporate buyers growing. Installations are expected to remain steady this year, with little growth, because of policy uncertainty. Total U.S. solar capacity is expected to reach 739 GW by 2035, but this depends on policy. The worst case scenario shows a 130 GW decline in deployment through 2035, which would represent $250 billion in lost investments.
“Last year’s record-level of installations was aided by several solar policies and credits within the Inflation Reduction Act that helped drive interest in the solar market,” said Sylvia Levya Martinez, a principal analyst of North America utility-scale solar for Wood Mackenzie. “We still have many challenges ahead, including unprecedented load growth on the power grid. If many of these policies were eliminated or significantly altered, it would be very detrimental to the industry’s continued growth.”
Tesla shares plunged yesterday by 15%, marking the company’s worst day on the market since 2020 and erasing its post-election stock bump.