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:
Want to build a subway or a power line to green energy? Get ready to pay and wait. Freeway blown up? It’s fixed already.
The partial Second Avenue subway line in New York City was, at the time of its completion in 2017, the most expensive piece of subway ever built in the world, at $2.5 billion per mile — or more than the Grand Coulee Dam, adjusted for inflation. Not coincidentally, it also took an entire decade to finish. The next phase of the same line might cost even more: estimated at $6.4 billion, which is highly likely to increase, by a lot, once construction actually gets going.
Compare that stupendous waste of money and time to the I-95 overpass in Philadelphia that was damaged by a gasoline tanker truck that caught fire underneath. In less than two weeks, a temporary fix reopening half the lanes was in place, and it’s expected that the rest of the repair will be completed ahead of schedule.
Now, it’s a lot easier to fix a busted highway overpass than dig a subway (though I should note a few of the tunnels were already dug back in the 1970s). But it’s still the case that the Second Avenue subway construction was roughly an order of magnitude slower and more expensive than what peer nations like Spain can manage for similar work, while the I-95 repair is more in line with international standards.
It reflects the fact there are plenty of trained engineers in this country who really can design projects quickly when asked, along with plenty of skilled construction workers who can work quickly if conditions are right. All it takes is sheer political panic about inconvenienced suburbanites.
Only that kind of thinking can break through the strangling kudzu of bureaucracy and lawsuits that makes it nearly impossible to build anything in this country.
For instance, this type of panicked efficiency doesn’t apply to new roads. The new interstate 69 has been under construction for many years, and has seen the same kind of delays and skyrocketing cost overruns as in the New York City subway system. It’s only when existing roads get blown up, thus threatening the driving access for existing suburbanites, that the government kicks into gear.
It also doesn’t apply to inner city road repairs, particularly when those repairs might include a loss of driving lanes or parking. In Philadelphia, a proposal to resurface dangerous Washington Avenue, while cutting the number of lanes from five to three or four, was tied up in community meetings and outreach for nearly 10 years, only for the local city council member to abruptly veto the entire redesign at the last minute and return to five lanes.
Delays and attendant cost overruns are also seen with California’s epically mismanaged high-speed rail system, now ten years behind schedule and substantially over budget despite the length of the project being cut by about two-thirds.
Long-distance electricity transmission lines might be worst of all. As Josh Saul, Cailley LaPara and Jennifer A Dlouhy report at Bloomberg, it takes a bare minimum of 10 years for a new line to make it through the gauntlet of regulatory approval from the Department of Energy and Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, as well as state authorities. One line from New Mexico to Las Vegas took 17 years to get final approval.
This is a disaster for America’s climate goals. We need to put a lot more renewable energy on the electric grid, and we need to be able to transmit that energy over longer distances to account for renewable variability between regions. If it takes nearly two decades to simply start constructing new long-distance transmission, we’re not going to make it.
There are many reasons why America has this problem, but a central key one is the growth of judicial power — and liberals are partly to blame. As Paul Erlich explains in his book Public Citizens, in the 1970s a new movement of liberal legal activists led by Ralph Nader, motivated by the Vietnam War and the numerous environmental disasters caused by federal government projects like dams and highways, mounted an activist campaign to force the government to undertake legal reviews before building things, make it easier for people to sue the government, and so on.
Their reasons for doing this were understandable at the time. But the overall result was calamitous, playing directly into the neoliberal turn under Presidents Reagan and Clinton. Nader and his allies made it dramatically more difficult for the federal government to do anything, especially build infrastructure, and conversely dramatically easier for any interested party to gum up the process of government with lawsuits. After Nader’s initial successes, the conservative movement seized on his legal tactics themselves — and with much greater success given how the very nature of the court system biases it towards rich elites who can afford to hire the most well-connected law firms, or stuff luxurious gifts into the pockets of Supreme Court justices.
Another reason is the American fetish for community input. On the face of it, it’s not clear why holding a meeting where random people can show up and talk represents “the community” instead of a small and highly unrepresentative group of retired busybodies, cranks, and, not uncommonly, paid sockpuppets for some vested interest. In any case, even if we grant the value of community meetings, they are often cynically abused — in the Philadelphia story above, every single meeting and every survey found a large majority in favor of cutting down the number lanes. They were just held over and over to buy time while elites maneuvered behind closed doors to get what they wanted.
A third reason is the American addiction to consultants and contractors. During the neoliberal turn, it became axiomatic to assume that the private sector could do absolutely everything better and cheaper than government. Just fire most of the state employees, it was thought, replace them with private firms, and everything will be great. This created stupendous corruption, as tick-like companies ballooned enormously on government contracts without the former expert oversight. And the resulting cost bloat made it harder to build, as 10 projects’ worth of money disappeared into the gullet of one project’s contractors.
With all these barriers to government action, only the incredible political dominance of suburban commuters can break through them. Instead of 10 years of meetings, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro immediately declared a state of emergency. Workers began demolishing the wrecked bridge on the same day it collapsed. Police escorted deliveries of asphalt and other construction material. When rain threatened to slow down the scheduled reopening, the state dragooned a NASCAR track drying machine from Pocono Raceway, blasting the road surface with air at jet engine velocity so it could be dry enough to paint on the same day it was paved.
This type of inventive, dynamic agility is all but unimaginable in any other American governance context. It reflects the political importance of suburban voters, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, and perhaps more to the point, the hegemonic assumption that suburban commuter interests are basically the entire point of government. When they are threatened, ordinarily sluggish and timid politicians spring into action, trampling over precedent as necessary, and digging into every possible corner for available resources.
It might take a decade to build three subway stops, or two decades to build a moderately long transmission line. But whenever a critical freeway overpass goes down, all levels of government will spring into action.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It was a curious alliance from the start. On the one hand, Donald Trump, who made antipathy toward electric vehicles a core part of his meandering rants. On the other hand, Elon Musk, the man behind the world’s largest EV company, who nonetheless put all his weight, his millions of dollars, and the power of his social network behind the Trump campaign.
With Musk standing by his side on Election Day, Trump has once again secured the presidency. His reascendance sent shock waves through the automotive world, where companies that had been lurching toward electrification with varying levels of enthusiasm were left to wonder what happens now — and what benefits Tesla may reap from having hitched itself to the winning horse.
Certainly the federal government’s stated target of 50% of U.S. new car sales being electric by 2030 is toast, and many of the actions it took in pursuit of that goal are endangered. Although Trump has softened his rhetoric against EVs since becoming buddies with Musk, it’s hard to imagine a Trump administration with any kind of ambitious electrification goal.
During his first go-round as president, Trump attacked the state of California’s ability to set its own ambitious climate-focused rules for cars. No surprise there: Because of the size of the California car market, its regulations helped to drag the entire industry toward lower-emitting vehicles and, almost inevitably, EVs. If Trump changes course and doesn’t do the same thing this time, it’ll be because his new friend at Tesla supports those rules.
The biggest question hanging over electric vehicles, however, is the fate of the Biden administration’s signature achievements in climate and EV policy, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 federal consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. A Trump administration looks poised to tear down whatever it can of its predecessor’s policy. Some analysts predict it’s unlikely the entire IRA will disappear, but concede Trump would try to kill off the incentives for electric vehicles however he can.
There’s no sugar-coating it: Without the federal incentives, the state of EVs looks somewhat bleak. Knocking $7,500 off the starting price is essential to negate the cost of manufacturing expensive lithium-ion batteries and making EVs cost-competitive with ordinary combustion cars. Consider a crucial model like the new Chevy Equinox EV: Counting the federal incentive, the most basic $35,000 model could come in under the starting price of a gasoline crossover like the Toyota RAV4. Without that benefit, buyers who want to go electric will have to pay a premium to do so — the thing that’s been holding back mass electrification all along.
Musk, during his honeymoon with Trump, boasted that Tesla doesn’t need the tax credits, as if daring the president-elect to kill off the incentives. On the one hand, this is obviously false. Visit Tesla’s website and you’ll see the simplest Model 3 listed for $29,990, but this is a mirage. Take away the $7,500 in incentives and $5,000 in claimed savings versus buying gasoline, and the car actually starts at about $43,000, much further out of reach for non-wealthy buyers.
What Musk really means is that his company doesn’t need the incentives nearly as bad as other automakers do. Ford is hemorrhaging billions of dollars as it struggles to make EVs profitably. GM’s big plan to go entirely electric depended heavily on federal support. As InsideEVsnotes, the likely outcome of a Trump offensive against EVs is that the legacy car brands, faced with an unpredictable electrification roadmap as America oscillates between presidents, scale back their plans and lean back into the easy profitably of big, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. Such an about-face could hand Tesla the kind of EV market dominance it enjoyed four or five years ago when it sold around 75% of all electric vehicles in America.
That’s tough news for the climate-conscious Americans who want an electric vehicle built by someone not named Elon Musk. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, bought a Tesla during the past five or six years because it was the most practical EV for their lifestyle, only to see the company’s figurehead shift his public persona from goofy troll to Trump acolyte. It’s not uncommon now, as Democrats distance themselves from Tesla, to see Model 3s adorned with bumper stickers like the “Anti-Elon Tesla Club,” as one on a car I followed last month proclaimed. Musk’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a rolling embodiment of the man’s brand, a vehicle purpose-built to repel anyone not part of his cult of personality.
In a world where this version of Tesla retakes control of the electric car market, it becomes harder to ditch gasoline without indirectly supporting Donald Trump, by either buying a Tesla or topping off at its Superchargers. Blue voters will have some options outside of Tesla — the industry has come too far to simply evaporate because of one election. But it’s also easy to see dispirited progressives throwing up their hands and buying another carbon-spewing Subaru.
Republicans are taking over some of the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth.
When Republicans flipped the Senate, they took the keys to three critical energy and climate-focused committees.
These are among the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth. The Senate plays the role of gatekeeper for important legislation, as it requires a supermajority to overcome the filibuster. Hence, it’s both where many promising climate bills from the House go to die, as well as where key administrators such as the heads of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are vetted and confirmed.
We’ll have to wait a bit for the Senate’s new committee chairs to be officially confirmed. But Jeff Navin, co-founder at the climate change-focused government affairs firm Boundary Stone Partners, told me that since selections are usually based on seniority, in many cases it’s already clear which Republicans are poised to lead under Trump and which Democrats will assume second-in-command (known as the ranking member). Here’s what we know so far.
This committee has been famously led by Joe Manchin, the former Democrat, now Independent senator from West Virginia, who will retire at the end of this legislative session. Energy and Natural Resources has a history of bipartisan collaboration and was integral in developing many of the key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act — and could thus play a key role in dismantling them. Overall, the committee oversees the DOE, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so it’s no small deal that its next chairman will likely be Mike Lee, the ultra-conservative Republican from Utah. That’s assuming that the committee's current ranking member, John Barrasso of Wyoming, wins his bid for Republican Senate whip, which seems very likely.
Lee opposes federal ownership of public lands, setting himself up to butt heads with Martin Heinrich, the Democrat from New Mexico and likely the committee’s next ranking member. Lee has also said that solving climate change is simply a matter of having more babies, as “problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they’re solved by more humans.” As Navin told me, “We've had this kind of safe space where so-called quiet climate policy could get done in the margins. And it’s not clear that that's going to continue to exist with the new leadership.”
This committee is currently chaired by Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, who is retiring after this term. Poised to take over is the Republican’s current ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. She’s been a strong advocate for continued reliance on coal and natural gas power plants, while also carving out areas of bipartisan consensus on issues such as nuclear energy, carbon capture, and infrastructure projects during her tenure on the committee. The job of the Environment and Public Works committee is in the name: It oversees the EPA, writes key pieces of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and supervises public infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, and dams.
Navin told me that many believe the new Democratic ranking member will be Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, although to do so, he would have to step down from his perch at the Senate Budget Committee, where he is currently chair. A tireless advocate of the climate cause, Whitehouse has worked on the Environment and Public Works committee for over 15 years, and lately seems to have had a relatively productive working relationship with Capito.
This subcommittee falls under the broader Senate Appropriations Committee and is responsible for allocating funding for the DOE, various water development projects, and various other agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
California’s Dianne Feinstein used to chair this subcommittee until her death last year, when Democrat Patty Murray of Washington took over. Navin told me that the subcommittee’s next leader will depend on how the game of “musical chairs” in the larger Appropriations Committee shakes out. Depending on their subcommittee preferences, the chair could end up being John Kennedy of Louisiana, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It’s likewise hard to say who the top Democrat will be.
Inside a wild race sparked by a solar farm in Knox County, Ohio.
The most important climate election you’ve never heard of? Your local county commissioner.
County commissioners are usually the most powerful governing individuals in a county government. As officials closer to community-level planning than, say a sitting senator, commissioners wind up on the frontlines of grassroots opposition to renewables. And increasingly, property owners that may be personally impacted by solar or wind farms in their backyards are gunning for county commissioner positions on explicitly anti-development platforms.
Take the case of newly-elected Ohio county commissioner – and Christian social media lifestyle influencer – Drenda Keesee.
In March, Keesee beat fellow Republican Thom Collier in a primary to become a GOP nominee for a commissioner seat in Knox County, Ohio. Knox, a ruby red area with very few Democratic voters, is one of the hottest battlegrounds in the war over solar energy on prime farmland and one of the riskiest counties in the country for developers, according to Heatmap Pro’s database. But Collier had expressed openness to allowing new solar to be built on a case-by-case basis, while Keesee ran on a platform focused almost exclusively on blocking solar development. Collier ultimately placed third in the primary, behind Keesee and another anti-solar candidate placing second.
Fighting solar is a personal issue for Keesee (pronounced keh-see, like “messy”). She has aggressively fought Frasier Solar – a 120 megawatt solar project in the country proposed by Open Road Renewables – getting involved in organizing against the project and regularly attending state regulator hearings. Filings she submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board state she owns a property at least somewhat adjacent to the proposed solar farm. Based on the sheer volume of those filings this is clearly her passion project – alongside preaching and comparing gay people to Hitler.
Yesterday I spoke to Collier who told me the Frasier Solar project motivated Keesee’s candidacy. He remembered first encountering her at a community meeting – “she verbally accosted me” – and that she “decided she’d run against me because [the solar farm] was going to be next to her house.” In his view, he lost the race because excitement and money combined to produce high anti-solar turnout in a kind of local government primary that ordinarily has low campaign spending and is quite quiet. Some of that funding and activity has been well documented.
“She did it right: tons of ground troops, people from her church, people she’s close with went door-to-door, and they put out lots of propaganda. She got them stirred up that we were going to take all the farmland and turn it into solar,” he said.
Collier’s takeaway from the race was that local commissioner races are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of disinformation, campaign spending and political attacks we’re used to seeing more often in races for higher offices at the state and federal level.
“Unfortunately it has become this,” he bemoaned, “fueled by people who have little to no knowledge of what we do or how we do it. If you stir up enough stuff and you cry out loud enough and put up enough misinformation, people will start to believe it.”
Races like these are happening elsewhere in Ohio and in other states like Georgia, where opposition to a battery plant mobilized Republican primaries. As the climate world digests the federal election results and tries to work backwards from there, perhaps at least some attention will refocus on local campaigns like these.