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:
Unlike another prominent climate case, there’s only upside to Held v. Montana
When Lander Busse spoke to the press after closing arguments in Held v. Montana, a trailblazing youth-led climate case that wrapped on Tuesday, he sounded optimistic.
“It feels like the beginning, really,” Busse, who at 18 is one of the case’s older plaintiffs, said. “Our next step in the process is getting our decision, which we’re really optimistic about at this point. But [we’re] also hopefully starting … a trickle-down of other litigation and activism nationally that we’ve been able to spark here.”
A cynic might describe the optimism as misguided; the idea of kids suing to control their future has historically only been entertained in the world of fiction. And yet when I asked lawyers about the case, they had a very different take. Not only is it a smart case with a strong argument, they told me, but it has practically no downsides.
“I understand the skepticism,” said James May, a law professor at Delaware Law School and founder of its Global Environmental Rights Institute. “If even a year ago, you had called and asked what I thought the prospects were of a climate case going on trial like this, I would have said next to zero. But there’s no other case like it. Never has climate been put on trial like this.”
According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, thousands of climate change-related cases have been filed in the United States. But, May told me, other than cases over administrative issues such as permitting, none of those cases made it to trial. The fact that the youth plaintiffs actually got their day in court is by itself a big deal.
Going to trial means the plaintiffs will be able to establish, in the public record, evidence about the causes and effects of climate change.
“There are two audiences,” said Rebecca Bratspies, a law professor at the City University of New York and the founding director of the Center for Urban Environmental Reform. “There’s one audience in the court, and getting a favorable ruling in court is important. But there’s also the wider context in terms of the social conversations about how to respond to the climate crisis. A decision for the plaintiffs in a very red state like Montana would be an extremely important message to the country as a whole.”
That message, it seems, is that the courts have a newfound appetite for climate cases in a way that didn’t exist before. Three weeks ago, a judge ruled that a different youth-led climate case, Juliana v. United States, could move forward after the case was amended in response to a dismissal in 2020. Both Held and Juliana are being represented by attorneys from Our Children’s Trust, an environmental group that filed similar youth-led lawsuits in every state. But the cases rest on very different legal theories.
The plaintiffs in Held v. Montana benefit from a very specific set of circumstances. In 1972, Montana held a constitutional convention that, among other things, guaranteed in the new constitution that “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
That gives the plaintiffs strong constitutional ground to stand on, Bratspies told me.
Montana’s state government has leaned particularly hard into climate denialism: in 2011 the legislature amended the Montana Environmental Policy Act so that climate change couldn’t be factored into environmental reviews, and this May, in an attempt to render the Held lawsuit moot, it specifically added a provision to ban any consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of energy projects. If Judge Kathy Seeley, who heard the arguments in Held v. Montana, rules in favor of the plaintiffs, she could say those changes were unconstitutional and that the state of Montana would have to start considering the impacts of climate change in permitting decisions.
Juliana rests on a different legal theory entirely. In that case, the plaintiffs are alleging the federal government is violating what’s known as the public trust doctrine — an idea that goes back as far as the Romans, which holds that when a state controls land, they act as a trustee and control it for the benefit of the people.
The public trust doctrine underlies the idea that the federal government manages both national waters and federal lands for the good of the people; according to Bratspies, Juliana would argue that the same idea extends to the atmosphere, and that therefore the government is neglecting its duties by not ensuring the atmosphere remains free of greenhouse gasses and therefore affected by climate change.
When litigating cases like these, there’s a constant weighing of the risks versus the rewards, and that calculus changes according to the makeup of the courts. Juliana, if it makes its way to the United States Supreme Court, would find itself in front of a conservative-majority court that as recently as last year struck a blow at the EPA’s ability to regulate climate change.
“There’s always a risk that the Supreme Court is going to do something that is sort of unprecedented and not consistent with the long-standing body of law,” Bratspies told me. “The worst-case scenario is that the plaintiffs lose in a fashion that limits legal theories moving forward, [like if] the court narrows the public trust doctrine in a fashion that says it doesn't apply to the atmosphere because the Romans didn't think about the atmosphere.”
That could have a chilling effect on other climate cases in federal courts; any federal climate lawsuits would have to find a different legal theory to rest their cases on, and a court that is willing to upend the public trust doctrine is unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments that don’t have a constitutional right to stand on. Held v Montana, being a case in state court, has no such drawbacks. The legal ramifications of a loss would be limited only to Montana, while the social impacts of the case will remain regardless of the outcome.
“Reasonable people can disagree with me, but I see nothing but positives come out of this case,” May told me. “If the plaintiffs win, it’s a first-time ruling that underscores that the courts play a role in climate rights. But even if they lose, there’s all this evidence in the record now. That could maybe inform or inspire cases elsewhere. Even in losing it would advance the conversation more than anything else that has happened.”
It could take weeks or even months for Judge Seeley to issue a ruling, and either outcome is likely to be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, where the plaintiffs may face an even tougher fight.
“It’s sort of a Sisyphean battle,” May said. “Every time they roll the boulder up to the top of the mountain, it rolls back down to the bottom, and they have to just keep trying. But what else is there to do? They can’t vote. They don’t hold the levers of power. They’re inheriting a melting planet. There’s nothing left to do except this.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Just about every other renewable energy company is taking a beating today.
American solar manufacturer First Solar may be the big winner from the slew of tariffs Donald Trump announced yesterday against the world’s trading partners. Sorry, make that basically the only winner among renewable energy companies.
In a note to clients this morning, Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith wrote that “in this inflationary environment, we expect FSLR's domestic manufacturing to be the clear winner” in the long term.
For everyone else in the renewable industry — for example, an equipment manufacturer like inverter company Enphase, which has been trying to move its activities away from China — “we perceive all costs to head higher, contributing to a wider inflation narrative.”
First Solar’s’s stock is up almost 4% in early trading as the broader market reels from the global tariffs. Throughout the rest of the solar ecosystem, there’s a sea of red. Enphase is down almost 8%. Chinese inverter manufacturer Sungrow is down 7%. Solar installer Sunrun’s shares are down over 10%. The whole S&P 500 is down 4%, while independent power producers such as Vistra and Constellation and turbine manufacturer GE Vernova are down around 10% as expected power demand has fallen.
First Solar “is currently the largest domestic manufacturer of solar panels and is in the midst of expanding its domestic manufacturing footprint, which should serve as a competitive advantage over its peers,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Perocco wrote in a note to clients Thursday morning.
Nor has First Solar been afraid to fight for its position in the global economy. It ispart of a coalition of American solar manufacturers that have been demanding protections against Southeast Asian solar exporters, claiming that they are part of a scheme by Chinese companies to avoid preexisting solar tariffs. In 2023,80% of American solar imports came from Southeast Asia, according to Reuters.
Tariff rates specific to solar components manufactured in those countries will likely be finalized later this month. Those will come in addition to the new tariffs, which will go into effect on April 9.
But the biggest question about First Solar — and the American renewables industry as a whole — remains unanswered: the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act. The company benefits both from tax credits for advanced manufacturing and investment and production tax credits for solar power.
“Government incentive programs, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”), have contributed to this momentum by providing solar module manufacturers, project developers, and project owners with various incentives to accelerate the deployment of solar power generation,” the company wrote in a recent securities filing.
If those tax credits are at risk, then First Solar may not be a winner so much as the fastest runner ahead of an advancing tide.
On once-in-a-lifetime bad weather, Trump tariffs, and Tesla’s shares
Current conditions: A heat wave triggered power cuts in Kuwait as electricity demand exceeded capacity • Australia just rounded out its 12 hottest months ever recorded • Temperatures in New York City are forecast to reach 73 degrees Fahrenheit today, nearly 30 degrees higher than yesterday.
Powerful thunderstorms are tearing across the Midwest and Mississippi Valley in what the National Weather Service has warned will be a “multi-day catastrophic and potentially historic” event. Destructive and deadly tornadoes were reported overnight in multiple states including Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Indiana. The system also brought a threat of once-in-a-lifetime flooding caused by heavy rainfall. More than 1.4 million people were under flash flood warnings. “This isn’t routine,” the National Weather Service in Memphis, Tennessee, warned. “This is a rare, high-impact, and potentially devastating event.” The storm is expected to stall over the region and continue to dump heavy rain – up to 12 inches in some areas – through the rest of the week.
NOAA
As Heatmap’s Jeva Lange has reported, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is highly confident in the attributable influence of climate change on extreme rain, and “everything we know about thunderstorms suggests that a warmer, wetter atmosphere will mean severe convection storms become both more frequent and more intense.” These historic spring storms are hitting as the Trump administration slashes jobs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, hampering the government’s ability to effectively forecast and respond to weather emergencies.
President Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping 10% baseline tariffs on imported goods, as well as higher “reciprocal” tariffs against about 60 countries that impose charges and other trade barriers on U.S. products. China will be hit with a 34% reciprocal fee, on top of Trump’s existing 20% tariffs on Chinese goods, bringing the overall rate to 54%. The European Union will be hit with 20% reciprocal tariffs; India 26%; South Korea 25%; Japan 24%, and Vietnam 46%. The full list is here.
The newly announced levies exclude imported energy commodities such as crude oil, natural gas, and refined products. “The exemption will come as a relief to the U.S. oil industry, which had expressed concerns that new levies could disrupt flows and raise costs,” Reutersnoted. Meanwhile, high reciprocal tariffs on goods from southeast Asia mean higher prices for solar panels, “another potential dent to the clean energy buildout by a president keen to boost fossil fuels,” according toBloomberg. Trump’s 25% tariffs on auto imports also come into effect today, a move expected to hike car prices for American consumers.
Tesla’s shares have been on a rollercoaster ride over the last 24 hours, falling by about 6% on weak quarterly EV sales, then rebounding on a report that CEO Elon Musk plans to step away from his role within the Trump administration. The electric vehicle company delivered 336,681 cars in the first quarter of 2025, far below analyst expectations of 390,000. The results are the company’s weakest since 2022, a further sign of curdling consumer sentiment as Musk spearheads unpopular mass firings across multiple federal agencies as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. On Wednesday, Politicoreported that President Trump has been telling his Cabinet that Musk will soon “return to his businesses and take on a supporting role” within the administration. The White House denied the report, but the rumor seemed to buoy Tesla’s stock market position, with pre-market shares up about 5% on Thursday.
A group of 16 Republican state legislators on Wednesday sent a letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright asking him not to pull the plug on funding for seven nascent hydrogen hubs dotted across the country. The Department of Energy is reportedly thinking about cutting $4 billion in funding for the hubs, which were approved under the Biden administration in an effort to turn hydrogen into a viable fossil fuel alternative. The GOP lawmakers urge Wright to preserve funding for the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub in particular, pitching it as a boost to manufacturing, energy independence, and domestic economic growth. Senate Democrats sent their own letter to Wright on Wednesday slamming the contemplated hydrogen hub defunding. “Indiscriminately canceling program funding and executed contracts, and refusing to execute on the funding directives Congress enacted, neither honors existing agreements nor is consistent with the spending laws that have appropriated funding for specific purposes,” the Democrats wrote.
Global coal-fired power capacity additions in 2024 were at their lowest level in 20 years, according to a new report from the Global Energy Monitor. The drop signals an ongoing slowdown in coal use as renewables come online, but the fleet is still growing, especially in China and India. China’s 30.5 gigawatts of newly commissioned coal power capacity last year accounted for 70% of the global total. Meanwhile, India recorded more new coal proposals than ever before. Coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, accounting for 40% to 45% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Global Energy Monitor
Montana’s Colstrip power plant, which produces more fine particulate emissions than any other coal-burning plant in the United States, has asked President Trump for an exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency’s air pollution standards.
While you were watching Florida and Wisconsin, voters in Naperville, Illinois were showing up to fight coal.
It’s probably fair to say that not that many people paid close attention to last night’s city council election in Naperville, Illinois. A far western suburb of Chicago, the city is known for its good schools, small-town charm, and lovely brick-paved path along the DuPage River. Its residents tend to vote for Democrats. It’s not what you would consider a national bellwether.
Instead, much of the nation’s attention on Tuesday night focused on the outcomes of races in Wisconsin and Florida — considered the first electoral tests of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s popularity. Outside of the 80,000 or so voters who cast ballots in Naperville, there weren’t likely many outsiders watching the suburb’s returns.
But for clean energy and environmental advocates, the Naperville city council results represent an encouraging, if overlooked, victory. On Tuesday, voters in the suburb elected four candidates — incumbents Benjamin White and Ian Holzhauer, and newcomers Mary Gibson and Ashfaq Syed — all of whom oppose the city signing a new contract with the Prairie State Generating Station, the state’s largest and youngest coal-fired plant and the seventh-dirtiest electricity provider in the country.
Naperville is one of 30 municipal investors in the Prairie State plant whose contract with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, a public power agency and one of the nine partial owners of Prairie State, has it locked into coal through 2035. Recently, IMEA approached the municipal investors with the promise of favorable terms on a new contract if the cities and towns were willing to re-sign a decade early — by April 30 — and commit to another 20 years of coal power. Most municipalities took the deal, which will run through 2055; Naperville, along with the towns of St. Charles and Winnetka, are still debating the decision, with the deadline looming.
“IMEA’s proposition for communities is, ‘Hey, instead of paying Wall Street and shareholder dividends, we don’t have any of that because we’re a nonprofit, so you get lower energy costs,’” Fernando Arriola, the community relations chair for Naperville Environment and Sustainability Task Force, which opposes the deal with IMEA, told me. “But the way I look at it is, it’s a deal with the devil because you’re locked in for 30 years. And it’s like Hotel California — you can check in anytime you like, but you can never leave.”
In a statement to Heatmap, Staci Wilson, the vice president of government affairs and member services at IMEA, told me that the contract it offered to Naperville is “designed to help … secure more future green resources to serve our member communities for the long term. IMEA is the only power supplier to allow the city to have a direct voice in procuring their wholesale power supply and make reliable, economical, and sustainable resource decisions for the future.”
While it’s true that IMEA allows its municipal members a voice in its future planning, those in Naperville who oppose the new contract point out that the community has just one vote in the process despite making up 35% of the utility’s market.
The pending contract decision became one of the major themes of the city council race in Naperville — attention that caused some locals to grumble about the injection of partisan politics and outside interest in the campaigns. But Syed, a newly elected city council member and a recent immigrant from Dubai, told me that learning that his city relied on coal for 80% of its energy needs was what ultimately galvanized him into running. “Naperville has been a leader in many things, but in this area, we were not doing good,” he said. “So I stepped up.”
Illinois has one of the nation’s most aggressive decarbonization timelines, requiring coal and gas plants to close by 2030. But there is a carve-out for plants owned by public entities like municipal utilities or rural electric cooperatives, and Prairie State fits that bill. Instead, the power plant has to reduce emissions by 45% by 2038, a goal IMEA says it can reach by installing multi-billion dollar carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy experts have been widely skeptical of the proposal. “The people I’ve talked to say that’s unproven and it doesn’t necessarily work, and it’s a high price,” Arriola said.
Still, cost concerns related to transitioning away from coal had “definitely been a conversation in town” leading up to Tuesday’s election, Arriola told me. “A lot of people are seriously concerned about pricing, and there are also concerns about the reliability.” Syed told me that was one of the objections he heard the most when talking to constituents during his campaign. “Some of the Republicans who were against [exporing alternative energy options] were trying to influence people, saying we need to think about the cost,” he said. “My standard answer to these people was that I am not going to compromise clean energy just for the cost purpose.”
Perhaps most interestingly, unlike many communities that oppose power plants, Naperville is located almost 300 miles north of the Prairie State Generating Station and is unaffected by its immediate pollution. Naperville voters who opposed renewing the contract did so on the merits of finding cleaner energy sources and on the objection to dirty electricity that is otherwise out of sight and out of mind. As Amanda Pankau, the director of energy and community resiliency at the Prairie Rivers Network, an environmental nonprofit in the state, told me, “From a climate perspective, we should all care about the Prairie State coal plant.” She noted that the emissions from the plant — around 12.4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year — are “impacting every single Illinoisan and every single person that lives on planet Earth.”
Despite those existential stakes, it could be tempting to wave away the results in Naperville as being on trend for a relatively affluent and liberal-leaning town. Compared to the Wisconsin supreme court election, where the Democrat-backed candidate overcame enormous spending margins to trounce her Republican-backed opponent, it does not necessarily indicate the same momentum for the party heading into 2026’s midterms. (Nor does it even have the biggest climate-related election headline of the night: Tesla is suing Wisconsin for a law preventing car manufacturers from owning car dealerships, which the state’s high court will likely decide.)
But at a time of little good news in the climate sphere, the Naperville election is an encouraging and invigorating reminder that there are candidates who believe in cleaner technologies, and that the battles can still — or especially — be won at the local level. “Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the IMEA contract we signed for that time was okay,” Syed said. “But it’s not okay today. We cannot have this $2 billion contract until 2055 because the next generation will ask us this question: ‘What have you people done for us this time?’”