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:
President Biden’s climate law gets a political stress test.

For the first time since it passed last summer, the Inflation Reduction Act — President Biden’s flagship climate law — is facing a threat of repeal.
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has proposed essentially rolling back the law in their opening bid on negotiations with the White House to extend the government's borrowing limit and prevent a calamitous default. The GOP's proposal, called the Limit, Grow, and Save Act, would raise the debt ceiling for a year while slashing trillions in federal spending over the next decade.
While the Republican bill proposes deep cuts across the board, it takes a cleaver to Biden’s climate policy. Folding in the Lower Energy Costs Act, the first bill that the new GOP majority put on the floor, the act would repeal more than two dozen of the IRA’s clean-energy tax credits, including subsidies for renewables and electric vehicles. It would also defund programs meant to open new factories in the United States and gut climate-friendly programs popular with Republicans, such as generous subsidies for nuclear energy and hydrogen production.
Now, let’s get this out of the way: Neither the bill nor the negotiations around it are likely to repeal the IRA. Yet for the next few days or weeks, the IRA will likely appear to be in danger as nobody will quite say it’s safe out loud.
The Republican bill’s chief importance is as a piece of political posturing: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy hopes to demonstrate that he has 218 votes to raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget, any budget, through his disorganized and dramatic caucus. Then he can open more serious negotiations with President Biden and Senate leaders about the debt ceiling and the year’s budget.
But to get there, he’ll have to keep the GOP’s right flank on his side first. McCarthy and House Republican leadership didn’t even want to include the IRA repeal in the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, but included it because the far-right House Freedom Caucus demanded it. That means House leadership must look completely serious about its intent to repeal.
At the same time, climate advocates must now mobilize around the IRA to demonstrate its importance to the public and prevent the Biden administration from sacrificing it in negotiations.
More broadly, though, this moment is a test for a few competing hypotheses about whether the IRA can survive — and about the future of climate policy in America.
To the set of political scientists, climate activists, and energy experts who championed the law, repealing the IRA would be so damaging to Republicans as to be unthinkable. That’s because Republicans’ constituents are, for now, reaping much of the IRA’s economic rewards. Up to two-thirds of green-energy investment nationwide is happening in GOP congressional districts, according to Politico. The all-important swing state of Georgia leads the country in clean-energy and electric-vehicle investments, forming the heartland of a new, vaguely banana-shaped “Battery Belt” that stretches across the largely Republican Southeast. Even beyond that region, Speaker McCarthy’s California district is one of the top two districts nationwide for utility-scale solar, wind, and battery plants.
This wasn’t an accident. The IRA is a product of the Democratic Party, so it was, yes, meant to do all those old-school Democrat things — encourage unionization, boost wages, and help revitalize the old industrial Midwest. But it was written by Democrats who see the party’s future in the Sunbelt suburbs and who prioritize decarbonization above other political goals. They knew — they couldn’t help but know — that much of the law’s investment would flow to the manufacturing centers of the American South and Southwest, where “Right to Work” laws restrict worker power and corporate-friendly policies reign.
On the other side, a set of critics allege that Republicans’ attack on the IRA doesn’t need to make political sense. Kate Aronoff, a New Republic staff writer who has been guardedly skeptical of the law, argued last week that House Republicans don’t care about the political fallout of killing the IRA because they’re protected from virtually any type of political fallout at all, thanks to gerrymandering, their deep-pocketed corporate donors, and a sharply conservative Supreme Court. In that view, the attempts to secure the IRA by appealing to Republicans’ constituents is futile: The party will simply do what it wants.
At stake here is a deep but important disagreement about the IRA. The flagship law aims to cleave fossil-fuel interests from the rest of the corporate bolus: to make it so attractive for banks, carmakers, electric utilities, steelmakers, manufacturers, and everyone else to decarbonize that they had no choice but to do so.Can that happen? Will that happen? This is the question on which the IRA’s advocates and its climate-friendly critics disagree. It is also is the question on which the fate of the IRA — and American climate policy — turns.
In her piece, Aronoff notes that fossil-fuel companies donated 13 times more to politicians in 2018 than renewable companies did. I found that to be oddly encouraging: If money alone is the issue, then the fossil-fuel industry’s alleged grip on the GOP could loosen over time. (The gap is already narrowing: Oil and gas-affiliated groups gave about six times more than renewables groups did in the most recent election cycle.)
The far more dangerous possibility for the IRA is that Republicans cannot be won over with money or argument. The party may just vibe with fossil fuels. Lawmakers and officials might feel an ideological affinity for oil and gas that goes deeper than those fuels’ economic or security benefits. During President Donald Trump’s term, he sometimes seemed to speak about fossil fuels not as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. This sometimes verged on trolling, but that was the point too: for Trump, at least, that it triggered liberals only underscored its correctitude. If that view were to break out into the party at large, it would spell an end to any kind of bipartisan shift on climate policy.
Which is all to say: Republicans probably won’t repeal the IRA this week.
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 automaker had a decent second quarter, but projects its best-ever year-end performance, as we wrap up a busy week in the energy economy.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
We are now well into the quarterly earning season, and this week we got a bead on some of the energy and climate economy’s biggest stories. Here’s what stuck out to me:
Oil companies had a blow-out quarter. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote today, oil and gas companies cashed in on the global price surge triggered by the Iran war. Their refining businesses did particularly well. But their results also revealed that global oil demand continues to fall — at least for now.
Some data center bets are starting to pay off. As I wrote on Wednesday, Microsoft had a bonanza quarter, and its Azure cloud business — which allows other companies to rent its data centers — grew faster than Wall Street expected.
That matters because America’s biggest tech companies have spent the past few years transforming into industrial firms, building massive new infrastructure and driving up U.S. electricity demand — and that strategy, contrary to some expectations, seems to be working for now.
Rivian is optimistic. The most important U.S. electric vehicle maker not run by Elon Musk released their second quarter results on Thursday night. The outlook was … decent!
The company delivered almost 12,200 vehicles last quarter. This was Rivian’s best period for sales since the third quarter of last year, when every EV maker’s results were juiced because the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV leasing tax credit expired.
Crucially, this was our first look at Rivian’s sales since it started delivering its more affordable (and well-reviewed) crossover, the R2. That vehicle started going out to customers at the very end of the quarter in mid-June, so we only get a snippet of those deliveries in this number.
More heartening, I think, is Rivian’s forward guidance. It now expects to deliver 65,000 to 70,000 vehicles this year, which implies it will deliver an average of more than 21,000 over the next two quarters. That would make Q3 and Q4 of this year its best sales periods ever.
RJ Scaringe, the company’s CEO, said that R2 sales conversions were running “meaningfully higher” than the company projected. The company still lost $379 million last quarter, but that was much better than analysts had projected.
We last checked in on Rivian when they sold new stock earlier this month to fund collateral for an Energy Department loan that will let them build a second factory in Georgia. On the call yesterday, executives confirmed they expect to start drawing on that loan in early 2027, part of what it painted as a healthy cash flow picture. For all the optimism, though, investors seemingly remain skeptical: Its stock fell 8% today.
It’s 2022 all over again. A war has broken out involving (at least) one large oil-producing country, raising both prices and oil company profits.
Chevron reported Friday a quarterly profit of $12.1 billion, its highest quarterly profit ever. ExxonMobil also announced a blowout quarter on Friday. Its $14.5 billion profit was its highest since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (when it posted an almost $20 billion profit in the third quarter). These announcements followed Shell’s Thursday earnings report, which revealed a profit of almost $10 billion, close to double its previous quarter earnings and in range of its 2022-vintage quarters.
What does this mean for decarbonization?
1. It’s refining, stupid.
The story across the oil majors was largely one of getting more profit out of its existing assets, particularly in their refining business.
Shell, for example, said that they were running their refineries at over 100% capacity and that it had shifted production to jet fuel, which had been in especially short supply following the American and Israeli attack on Iran and subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The company said it had “significantly higher” trading profits, likely from the volatility of commodity prices due to the start and stop nature of the war. Exxon said that it had “a second-quarter record for diesel production,” and that its chemicals business saw its margins jump by around 180% as its North American facilities were able to count on a steady stream of hydrocarbon feedstocks, unlike rivals in Asia.
“The unprecedented reduction in refining capacity – with nearly 9% of global capacity offline across Russia, China, and the Middle East – limited the supply of gasoline, diesel, and other products,” Exxon said. “As a result, refining margins reached record levels in the quarter.”
Meanwhile Chevron said it was refining over one million barrels of oil per day with “more than 97 percent” utilization.
While this constrained global refining capacity is largely due to military conflict in the Middle East and Russia, refinery capacity has been basically flat in many developed economy markets for decades. In the United States, the newest large refinery was built in 1977, an indication that while the U.S. transportation and energy system is still dominated by fossil fuels, there isn’t much appetite for the billions of capital investment needed to expand capacity for refining gasoline. So, while profits can surge in the short term, it doesn’t necessarily mean blue skies for oil companies.
2. Oil demand is actually falling — for now
Chevron noted that sales of refined products had actually fallen by 4% in the United States and 13% internationally. While in the short run this is likely due to higher prices, it is consistent with falling forecasts for oil demand.
While the International Energy Agency’s “current policies scenario,” which forecasts demand based on a snapshot of existing policies, sees a slow and steady rise through 2050, its “stated policies scenario” based on the trajectory of policy and commitments around energy and climate, sees oil demand peaking at levels slightly about the status quo by around 2030. In the medium run, the IEA said that “Forecast growth of [two million barrels per day] in 2027 results in a two-year pace of expansion well below historical trends.”
BP even announced layoffs of hundreds of employees, according to an internal message seen by Reuters.
This can help explain why, despite the strong profits, investors do not seem particularly jazzed about the oil giants — ExxonMobil and Chevron shares are only up slightly since the beginning of the war in Iran.
3. The high profits are already stoking public outrage
Everyone knew oil prices had risen since the war in Iran began — they could see it at the pump. But the confirmation that the war has spurred record or near-record profits has been fresh meat for environmental groups that want a faster energy transition.
“The mugging at Mar-a-Lago just keeps getting worse. The president said he would sell out Americans to oil and gas CEOs for a billion dollars in campaign donations. Now we know he owns millions of dollars worth of their stock. Those same companies are profiting from Trump’s war of choice, which has killed and injured U.S. service members, and left consumers struggling to stay afloat,” former Washington Governor Jay Inslee said in a statement blasted out by the communications group Climate Power.
The profits also spurred advocates to redouble calls for windfall profit taxes. “It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told the Associated Press. Whitehouse introduced a bill in March that would impose taxes on oil companies in the event of price surges.
And even President Trump, whose presidential campaign was buoyed by donations from the oil and gas industry, called for an investigation into retail gasoline prices last month.
Since 2022, fossil fuels have moved back to the center of the world economy as concerns about shortages, price spikes, and availability have helped push concerns about climate change to the margins of policymaking. However, when oil companies are making more money than ever, it means an uptick in public concern or scrutiny. In the long run, oil companies have to worry about decarbonization; in the short run, they’ll have to worry about their customers.
What’s the deal with all those “America Connects” videos?
The data center lobby is launching a big PR blitz on television and social media, racking up millions of views on evidently AI-generated content boasting economic impacts from new projects and hitting against criticism around energy and water use.
In an interview with me Wednesday, Data Center Coalition CEO Josh Levi explained how and why his organization – the largest and most prominent data center trade group – stood up an “evolving” national advertising campaign called America Connects.
Like me, up until now, you might’ve interacted with the campaign’s materials without knowing it. For weeks I’ve been getting texts from people in my life who know I write about data centers asking if I’d seen these ads on TV streaming platforms and social media sites boasting benefits from data centers, or pushing back on complaints about energy and water use. Most of the videos were quite similar, appeared to be generated using AI (with no AI labeling), and were racking up millions in views and impressions.
“Our paychecks, our hospitals, our national security – all run through data centers,” states one voiceover in a YouTube ad targeted at the Longhorn State with more than 12 million views as of today.
“In Texas, they’re doing more than keeping us connected. Data centers support high-paying jobs and pay billions in taxes. Money that can lower your bills, make schools and roads better and communities safer. And new technology means data centers consume minimal water while funding new power generation for everyone. Data centers: built in Texas. For Texas.”
These videos each are hosted on channels named for specific campaigns in individual states. In Georgia, it’s called Connected Georgia. There’s a Texas Connects, an Indiana Connects, and a Pennsylvania Connects. At least eight state campaigns are happening right now and I’m told more should be expected in the near future. Each state campaign has a near-identical website with links to their promoted videos, statistics about state-level tax contributions, and employment from data centers, and a somewhat modern-looking red, white, and blue design with moving graphics on the landing page.
But finding out who was behind these videos and websites took a lot of digging. None of the state campaign websites have contact information and they were all registered by a proxy firm that gets web addresses for entities that want to remain anonymous. Most of the advertising itself was opaque; it’s not easy to research TV commercial spends and Google doesn’t disclose how much a company or person pays to promote individual ads. But there were signs of significant spending, as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram advertising disclosures revealed to me there was five-figure spending on static images, resulting in millions of potential impressions.
Eventually I was able to figure out what was going on. Each of the state campaigns also described themselves online as nonprofits but in fact, there is one nonprofit. It initially formed for the first state campaign, Virginia Connects. Its public 2024 tax disclosures show the campaign was formed by Levi and others working with the Data Center Coalition. On the DCC’s website, the trade group does have a landing page for what it calls “America Connects” and directs people to each state campaign but, as of today, the organization describes them as “regional coalitions” they “partner” with on “helping educate and engage citizens, policymakers, and other stakeholders on the data center industry, its benefits, and key issues including energy, water, economic development, and community engagement.”
In our interview, Levi explained these state campaigns aren’t just partners – they’re creations of a single nonprofit he said was “stood up” by the trade group named America Connects, and it began in 2024 through the Virginia Connects campaign. America Connects is now “a vehicle by which the broader community can engage and participate” in what Levi described as “broader industry messaging” that isn’t “just project by project.” It’s a direct response, Levi said, to the lack of any industrywide PR offensive challenging the mountain of public opposition to data centers shown in poll after poll. (With the exception of that one Meta ad campaign.)
“What we have heard very clearly is that a lot of the partners we work with, but also a lot of the voices from the public at large, is that the industry broadly needs to do a better job communicating. A better job talking about what we do, how we do it, and about the positive benefits of what localities can expect from data center development,” Levi said.
Levi told me the core of the group is at least three people: himself; Allison Gilmore, the chief operating officer of the DCC; and Kevin Hughes, the group’s treasurer and the chief external affairs officer at the data center developer STACK Infrastructure. He said I should expect “an expansion on the board” but declined to say who or what companies. Part of the team also includes LINK Public Affairs, a communications firm based in Virginia that helped on the initial campaign in the state.
I asked how an industry-backed campaign like this would help with the backlash. “Silence breeds mistrust, fundamentally. It is critically important as we see continuing conversations around the data center industry – what it does, what it doesn’t do, how it does – is part of informing those conversations,” Levi replied. “It is important the industry not be silent and be an active contributor in terms of the public dialogue around data centers. This is that.”
The DCC wouldn’t tell me how much is being spent on the America Connects campaign and it’s impossible to know from what’s publicly available.
Here’s what Levi would say about the money: that America Connects is funded by the data center “ecosystem generally,” including developers, companies within the supply chain, and “workforce voices.” But Levi wouldn’t even confirm if they were spending more than they had in just the Virginia campaign, which sort of logically has to be the case if they’ve expanded this effort.
“White it’s maybe not a satisfying answer, we will spend what we have to when it comes to ensuring we reach people where they are. But I’m not able to provide any kind of concrete number for you.”