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:
Much may depend on the Senate’s tolerance for fuzzy math.

House Republicans passed a budget blueprint Thursday morning that lays the groundwork for the party to begin drafting legislation to enact President Trump’s agenda. Now the fight over the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits begins in earnest.
The blueprint is merely a set of instructions for writing the eventual budget bill, laying out topline numbers for tax cuts and spending reductions — it doesn’t contain any actual policies. Trump’s biggest priorities are to extend the tax cuts he enacted in 2017, pass new tax cuts on tips and overtime pay, and to boost spending on immigration control and defense.
The resolution that Republicans passed allows for all of the above. In total, it enables Congress to craft a bill that would increase the national debt over the next decade by more than $5 trillion.
The good news for the IRA tax credits is that the framework only requires lawmakers to craft legislation that would produce $4 billion in savings — a relatively small amount that doesn't exert much pressure on cutting the tax credits. The bad news is that Senate Republicans have given their word to budget hawks in the House that they will aim to cut much more than that — at least $1.5 trillion in spending. House Republicans, for their part, are eager to do at least $2 trillion in deficit reductions.
According to a “menu” of budget proposals that made its way around the Hill earlier this year, Republicans estimate they could save anywhere from $3 billion to $800 billion by repealing IRA tax credits, depending on how many and which ones are cut.
Lawmakers could also go after other climate-related policies, like cutting grant programs from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. “Most of the funds have been obligated,” meaning they’re legally committed to grantees, “so there’s not much left to rescind,” Alex McDonough, a lobbyist with Pioneer Public Affairs, told me in an email. “We’ll see what they do with a possible rescission package, but even that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions they want for offsetting tax cuts.”
Lobbyists on Capitol Hill and other experts I’ve spoken with over the past two weeks disagree about how much the numbers matter when it comes to whether and how much of the IRA will be repealed. Some felt the budget math would take priority, while others told me that if any of the tax credits were killed or saved, it would be for political reasons over anything else.
Though the biggest political target seems to be the electric vehicle tax credits, “anything with a price tag is at least somewhat vulnerable,” McDonough said. Lawmakers could also opt to make certain credits more difficult to access or phase them out earlier rather than fully repeal them.
McDonough also said the lobbying that companies and trade groups have been doing around the manufacturing and clean electricity tax credits appeared to be working, and will ratchet up even more in May. “Appealing to ‘all of the above’ and ‘energy dominance’ is working because everyone knows how badly we need new generation to meet rapidly rising demand and a lot of the clean energy resources happen to be the quickest to deploy,” he said. “Utilities want it too, which is also very important.”
On Thursday, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Curtis of Utah sent a letter to their party’s leadership asking them to preserve tax credits that spur manufacturing, reduce energy costs for consumers, and give certainty to businesses that have already made investments in the U.S. based on the credits. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Jerry Moran of Kansas also signed the letter. It was the first major show of support for the tax credits in the Senate, following a similar letter signed by 21 Republicans in the House.
Republicans are trying to enact Trump’s agenda using a special process called budget reconciliation, which will enable them to pass it with a simple 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. The party currently has 53 seats, so four Republicans coming out in favor of preserving IRA tax credits is a good sign for the law. Similarly, the Republicans have a seven-seat majority in the House, and so those 21 who like the IRA could have quite a bit of influence.
But the other big open question for the future of the IRA — and frankly, for the future of the Senate — is whether Republicans will proceed with the fuzzy math they are using to calculate the cost of the bill. When the Congressional Budget Office scores the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, it will use what's called a "current law baseline," and estimate that they will cost the government more than $3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Senate Republicans, however, have asserted that extending the 2017 tax cuts is free and will have no impact on the deficit, using a different scoring method called a “current policy baseline.”
The reason this matters for the IRA is that the budget reconciliation process has strict rules. If lawmakers were forced to recognize the true cost of the tax cut extensions in drafting the budget bill, they would have to make several trillion dollars’ worth of additional spending cuts in order to align with the blueprint they passed this week. In that scenario, it’s hard to see how any of the IRA could survive.
But if Republicans unify around this fuzzy math and carry it all the way to the final vote on the bill, which would be unprecedented, they could face a showdown with Democrats, who will say the bill doesn’t comply with the reconciliation rules. In that scenario, they’ll be faced with a choice either to go back to the drawing board or take the nuclear option — essentially changing how the Senate operates.
“There will be a majority vote on whether the Senate wants to change its precedents going forward, forever, and basically open up reconciliation to whatever policies the majority wants to enact going forward,” Charlie Ellsworth, another lobbyist for Pioneer Public Affairs, told me.
Expect to hear a lot more about this debate over the cost of the tax cuts once lawmakers return to Washington on April 28 after a two-week recess. Republicans have said they want to get the budget bill to Trump’s desk by Memorial Day. McDonough doesn’t think that’s in the cards, and expects it to happen by the August recess at best. But he expects the House Ways and Means committee to push out a first version of the bill in May, so we’ll see what the first proposal is for the fate of the IRA tax credits then.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Everything is getting more expensive — except for government debt.
Across the developed world, yields on government debt are rising, driving up the cost of borrowing with potentially particularly dire effects for renewable and clean energy.
“Nearly every issue of government bonds at every maturity for all G7 countries is trading at a higher rate today than it was in February, pushing up the amount that governments must pay to sell new debt,” the Financial Times reported on Sunday.
These government bonds — especially U.S. government bonds — serve as benchmarks for lending across the economy. The 10-year Treasury is currently trading at a yield of 4.8%, up from 4% in February before the war in Iran began.
The rising yields are due in part to the ongoing war being waged by the United States and Israel, which has driven up the prices of core commodities and touched off inflation across the globe. A number of wealthy countries, including the United States, are also running large budget deficits, which means there’s lots of government debt floating around. Inflation erodes the value of that debt, however, driving up the returns investors demand for government bonds and driving down what they’re willing to pay.
I have written extensively about how high borrowing costs exact an especially steep toll from renewable energy development. That’s because the bulk of spending on a renewable project — say a solar farm — comes up front as capital expenditure that often has to be financed through borrowing. For a gas-fired power plant, on the other hand, the spending is split more evenly between upfront costs and operational costs (namely fuel), which can be paid for out of cash flow from operating the plant. Where the cost of operating a gas plant is at the mercy of natural gas prices, for a renewables project, interest rates can dominate the economics.
Sure enough, that inflationary pressure showed up in the second-quarter results of America’s renewables companies. Solar installer Sunrun, for instance, has seen declining sales growth. In an August earnings call, Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the company’s results were “reflecting a higher capital cost as interest rates have inched up.” Wind developer Orsted, meanwhile, told investors that it had incurred a nearly $200 million loss on its U.S. offshore wind business “as a result of an increase in the long-dated U.S. interest rates.”
But macroeconomic indicators like deficits, inflation, and interest rates show just one side of the picture. After all, it’s not just governments that borrow, and it’s not just money that’s necessary for any sort of big project, including renewable and clean energy.
At the same time governments are borrowing more, bond market investors are also being offered hundreds of billions of dollars of debt from hyperscalers and other technology companies looking to build out data centers to power artificial intelligence. Bond markets will have to ingest over $500 billion of AI-related debt issuance this year, according to Morgan Stanley, and they’ll be called upon again to help fund an estimated $1.2 trillion in capital expenditures in 2027. Across the economy as a whole, “more than half of the capex growth this year can likely be ascribed to the buildout related to AI,” Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh said in a speech last week.
That boom is driving economic activity — and high prices — throughout a number of sectors, including materials and labor.
Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told CNBC in June that inflation was “too high,” citing “insatiable” demand from data center developers for inputs such as electric switchgears. (Hammack was a dissenting voice at the July meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee, voting for a higher interest rate against the Fed majority who decided to keep rates unchanged.)
And it’s not just software engineers who are seeing high salaries as a result of the AI boom. The technology buildout has also raised the wages of laborers and tradespeople essential to both data center and energy projects, especially for specialized trades like electricians.
“Skilled workers were difficult to find in a range of fields, notably technicians and tradespeople,” the Federal Reserve reported in its July report on economic conditions.
While this is great news for electricians and their families, it’s also the type of thing that can make central bankers nervous.
The “AI investment surge could trigger nonlinear price increases,” Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan said in July. “The risk is that the pressures broaden as AI demand touches construction, power generation, and other sectors.”
That’s the silver lining for renewable energy — and all energy developers. While the costs of capital, materials, and labor are going up, electricity itself has never been in greater demand.
The energy developer and utility NextEra told investors on its July earnings call that it’s been able to sign new contracts on existing assets at a $20 per megawatt-hour premium over recent prices, a process known as “recontracting,” indicating solid demand for power.
Overall, NextEra chief executive John Ketchum said, “Hyperscalers and other large load customers are increasingly focused on speed, certainty, and scalability. That plays directly to our strengths.”
Chirag Lala, vice president of research at the Center for Public Enterprise, explained to me that it’s this demand that’s balancing out the higher financial and material costs renewable developers face. “That’s why we are still getting solar and battery builds. There’s demand on the system,” he told me.
The industry is in a kind of tug of war between financial and structural factors pulling it back, and demand factors pushing it forward. “That buildout could absolutely be faster and bigger if a variety of structural and financial variables were mitigated,” Lala said.
The Supreme Court will decide once and for all.
Good evening from New York, where a district court judge struck down a law the state passed in 2024 to extract $75 billion from fossil fuel companies to fund its response to climate change. The ruling is a sign that so-called “superfund”-style laws may not be the winning strategy many climate advocates had hoped.
You may know the New York law as the Climate Change Superfund Act, and it mirrors similarly-named legislation passed in Vermont and introduced in about a dozen other states. The law’s backers — environmental groups, consumer advocates — pitched it as a new approach after earlier attempts to sue energy companies directly for damages had either failed or were stuck in procedural arguments over whether the cases belonged in state or federal court.
Get Heatmap Daily in your inbox
Unlike those lawsuits, the climate superfund laws don’t accuse the companies of doing anything wrong. They are modeled on the federal Superfund program, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to request funding from companies to clean up industrial waste years after the contamination occurred, and despite the fact that the pollution was lawful at the time. The theory was that this federal precedent might give the states a leg up when energy companies inevitably fought the policy.
That comparison does not seem to have meant much to Judge Brenda Sannes. Instead, her decision focused on the similarities between the climate superfund law and a lawsuit New York City brought against Chevron and other oil companies that federal courts dismissed several years ago. Sannes concluded that just like the city’s lawsuit, the superfund law would in effect regulate interstate greenhouse gas emissions, which is a federal responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
Notably, Sannes also disregarded the Trump administration decision to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, which underpinned the federal government’s responsibility to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act, writing that it had “no impact” on her analysis.
To me, the idea that these climate lawsuits and superfund laws are akin to emissions regulation has been one of the more confounding aspects of covering these court fights. None of the suits concern greenhouse gas regulations in any traditional sense — they are about oil companies’ deception and responsibility for climate change-related damages. Still, several courts have agreed with oil companies that the financial penalty levied on them amounts to a form of oversight of emissions.
Climate advocates are not giving up just yet, and are urging New York Attorney General Letitia James to appeal. A press release from the group Fossil Free Media argued the ruling was “based on a deeply flawed analysis” and was “an early, appealable decision in a developing legal fight.” James has not yet issued a response.
Regardless, the superfund concept will get another test in the federal court for the district of Vermont, where the same groups challenging New York’s law — the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, Republican states, and the Trump administration — are also challenging Vermont’s version.
Much more rides on an upcoming Supreme Court case, however. The high court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, Colorado against Exxon and a Canadian oil sands company, Suncor. The county originally filed the case in 2018, and it’s one of the ones that’s been held up for years in procedural arguments. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court decided it could finally advance toward a trial, leading the oil companies to appeal to the federal Supreme Court. They are asking the justices to decide once and for all whether federal law preempts states from seeking relief for climate damages.
Oral arguments begin on October 5.
On Palisades’ progress, Taliban minerals, and New York’s climate superfund
Current conditions: Tropical Depression Five is barreling northwest from the Caribbean to Houston • In the Pacific, Hurricane Karina has strengthened into a Category 4 storm, but it’s unlikely to make landfall anywhere • The surface temperature of the Yellow Sea is nearly 85 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling storms across South Korea.
President Donald Trump is among the few politicians in America willing to stand 10-toes-down in defense of the need to build out more data centers. In a post Monday on Truth Social, the president admonished communities that reject data centers as misguided and foolish. “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign.” Still, he said “plenty of other places” want them. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame,” he wrote. “China could not be happier with this anti data center movement.” It’s not a popular stance. Heatmap Pro’s latest polling shows that three-quarters of Americans now oppose data centers built in their backyards.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York struck down the state’s Climate Change Superfund Act on Monday, ruling that the 2024 law is invalid under the federal Clean Air Act. The law set up a cost recovery scheme whereby fossil fuel companies would pay into a fund used to finance climate change adaptation-related infrastructure projects. The state’s argument rested in part on the Trump administration’s decision earlier this year to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, which gave the agency authority to regulate climate pollution. That move “cannot be reconciled” with the administration’s argument that the CAA preempts New York’s law, the state said. Judge Brenda K. Sannes dismissed that reasoning in her decision, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Electric Power v. Connecticut from 2011, which, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo put it, “established companies’ protection from federal public nuisance claims over greenhouse gas emissions. That decision sprang from the Court’s earlier 2007 decision that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions — which the EPA is now contesting.”
The case was one of at least four the Trump administration has pursued against states attempting to make fossil fuel companies cover the costs of adapting to climate change. Judges have already ruled against its attempts to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies, however a case against a similar superfund law in Vermont is still pending. “New York’s law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law,” Adam Gustafson, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Energy and Natural Resources Division and the administration’s lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans.”
A sign of how much an industry is really booming is whether startups begin popping up to provide ancillary services. Here’s a prime example of the artificial intelligence buildout’s energy boom: The AI energy software provider Verse told Heatmap exclusively for this newsletter that it now has 30 gigawatts of power under its platform’s management. The company’s flagship product, Aria, is an intelligence platform for data center companies that brings utility bills, contracts, power purchase agreements, and live power usage data under one dashboard. The company also helps manage on-site assets such as batteries. “You can't solve for speed, cost, risk, and carbon while your supply contracts, your load, and your flexible assets sit in separate silos,” Seyed Madaeni, Verse’s chief executive and co-founder, said in a statement.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
When Holtec International starts the Palisades nuclear plant back up, the facility in western Michigan will be the first in the nation to return to life after a permanent shutdown. Once complete, the Palisades restart will set off a series of other projects, including some to repower defunct nuclear plants in Pennsylvania and Iowa. That makes each milestone in the Palisades project notable — but the one it reached Monday is particularly promising. Holtec started loading fuel into the reactor, setting the stage for it to return to service potentially before the end of the year, months before the official March 2027 start date. “Loading fuel into the Palisades reactor is an important milestone and a reflection of the tremendous effort of the men and women who have brought this plant to this point,” Fadi Diya, Holtec’s chief nuclear officer, said in a statement. Palisades’ completion won’t just kick off more restarts. Holtec also plans to build its first two 300-megawatt small modular reactors at the site. Based on the industry’s standard pressurized water technology, the company has received hundreds of millions from the Department of Energy to support its construction.

Commerce can, at times, be the ultimate salve. Raw materials flowed from the U.S. to British factories even after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Japanese and German automobiles dominate American roads decades after those nations’ defeats in World War II. As memories of war fade, Americans buy nearly $200 billion in Vietnamese goods each year, helping to transform the Southeast Asian country into a top manufacturing hub. Now the Taliban is making its pitch to Washington’s wallet. The Islamist group now leading Afghanistan said it would “absolutely” welcome U.S. investments in the rural, mountainous, and underdeveloped Central Asian country’s mining, infrastructure, or agriculture industries. “Relations between Afghanistan and the United States should not be assessed through the lens of the past 20 years of war, but rather on the basis of future co-operation,” Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi told the Financial Times at his office in Kabul. “Our economic policy is open.”
Meanwhile, from China to the U.S., lithium producers are posting what Bloomberg called “bumper profits.” Demand for energy storage is soaring, especially as countries seek to insulate themselves from the effects of the Iran War energy shock. As a result, Chinese companies such as Tianqi Lithium and Ganfeng Lithium Group reported their strongest net income in three years during the first six months of 2026. North Carolina-based Albemarle said global lithium demand had grown 45% compared to a year earlier. Australia’s PLS Group, meanwhile, “swung a $377 million profit in the 12 months to June 30 from a loss the year before,” the newswire reported.
You don’t need to be an expert in emerging markets to recognize the potential for solar. Countries that haven’t yet extended grid networks into rural areas can electrify villages using panels that are increasingly cheap and flooding into places such as sub-Saharan Africa, as I told you last week. You won’t need deep connections in those countries to start investing in that renewable energy potential, either. The startup Odyssey Energy Solutions, as my colleague Katie Brigham put it, “acts as a middleman between local installers and global capital providers that want exposure to developing markets but typically wouldn’t take the risk of financing small companies in unfamiliar environments.” This morning, the company told Katie exclusively, it’s announcing that it has raised another $74 million to fund its buildout.