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:
When Congress rescinded unobligated funds from the historic climate law, it inadvertently answered a question climate advocates have been asking for months.

The Biden administration left office without ever disclosing how much of the historic climate funding from the Inflation Reduction Act it had spent.
Politico reached out to every federal agency in November in an attempt to answer that question and could only conclude that it was a “big mystery.” The administration had announced awards for about 67% of the $145.4 billion in grants created by the IRA, the outlet found, but the amount that had been obligated — meaning legally committed and therefore, at least in theory, protected — remained largely unknown.
That continued to be true right up until the legislative process for Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. In addition to overhauling the IRA’s clean energy tax credits, Republicans in Congress rescinded the unobligated funds from 47 of the law’s more than 80 climate and environmental programs. According to scores from the Congressional Budget Office, $31.7 billion of the $93.4 billion for those programs, or about 34%, was left.
That means the Biden administration spent or contracted out about two-thirds of the funding from these programs. The data puts into focus what the ultimate effects and outcomes of the Inflation Reduction Act will be over the coming decades — or rather, what they could be, if the Trump administration upholds existing contracts. Whether the administration must honor these agreements is the subject of several ongoing lawsuits.
But we can see, for example, that the Environmental Protection Agency, which had the largest appropriation from the IRA of any agency, obligated the vast majority of that money to states, tribes, nonprofits, and other beneficiaries. Billions of dollars to monitor and address air pollution in low-income communities and at schools, to phase down planet-warming refrigerants and transition to next-generation technologies, and to help states build out and implement their climate action plans should theoretically be flowing into the economy, so long as the contracts are ultimately honored. The entirety of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was obligated, and while the EPA has attempted to claw back roughly $20 billion of that — a process that has been held up in the courts — the $7 billion set aside for a low-income solar program called Solar For All is actively funding new projects around the country.
The agency under Biden was less successful in standing up a series of programs designed to advance greenhouse gas emissions reporting. Initiatives to improve the labeling systems for low-carbon construction materials and to standardize corporate emissions reporting never really got off the ground.
The Department of Agriculture was also an efficient spender. While the data shows it had obligated only about $7 billion of the more than $18 billion allocated for climate-focused conservation programs, only $10 billion of the funding was actually available for the department to use by the time Biden left office. On the one hand, that means it awarded 70% of the available funds. On the other, that means Congress has now evaporated a whopping $11 billion that could have been disbursed.
The Forest Service, which is under the USDA, also deployed more than $2 billion, or about 93% of its funding for National Forest restoration, urban forestry, and climate mitigation grants for private forest owners.
There are limitations to the data. It shows that the Department of Energy only spent about 39% of its funding, but because the Budget Office did not break out the rescissions by program, we can’t see how far along the agency got with each one, or how much of each was clawed back. The data can also be somewhat misleading, as several of the programs provide loans and loan guarantees, while the OBBB only rescinded “credit subsidies,” i.e. money to cover the costs of this lending service. In other words, this doesn’t tell us much about how much Biden’s Loan Programs Office accomplished. But in this case the office’s website helps fill out the picture: It lists 23 active loans that were made after the IRA passed, worth nearly $58 billion. (The IRA appropriated about $11.7 billion in credit subsidies to the Loan Programs Office.)
I also put together a list of programs that Congress did not rescind, as they show which IRA creations the GOP either deemed worthwhile or too depleted, a.k.a. obligated, to be worth the effort. Several big-ticket items jump out. As I’ve previously written, two rebate programs for home efficiency improvements remain intact, although most of the $8.8 billion in funding is currently paused. Drought mitigation, water access, and tribal electrification and climate resilience grants were also untouched. A $3 billion EPA program to reduce air pollution at ports made it through the gambit after an initial House draft of the OBBB had proposed killing it.
Republicans in Congress also preserved a nearly $10 billion program to help rural electric cooperatives invest in clean energy and energy efficiency. Rural coops disproportionately rely on coal-fired power plants, burdening their members with higher energy prices and dirtier air. While the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a major advocate for coal power and has applauded Trump’s moves to boost it, the group also championed the rural clean energy program, with its CEO telling E&E News last fall that the program was oversubscribed and that “there is an appetite for investing in clean energy.”
To be sure, the question of whether and to what extent the Trump administration will disburse previously obligated funds or continue to spend down the remaining programs is a big one. But the supposition that the OBBB “killed” the IRA is also not really accurate. Between obligated funds and the programs that weren’t rescinded, more than $105 billion could still flow into the economy to fight climate change.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: August 2026 has tied with July 2023 as the hottest month the world has ever recorded • The Pacific’s hurricane churn continues as Tropical Storm Norbert strengthens off the coast of Baja California • Temperatures are nearing 90 degrees Fahrenheit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where Bukharian Jews are just now — as we hit publish on this newsletter — ringing in Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, at the grand 135-year-old Gumbaz Synagogue.

The chief benchmark for crude oil produced in the United States surpassed $100 per barrel Thursday as Iran-backed Houthi rebels seized control of a key port in the Red Sea, intensifying Tehran’s effort to loosen Washington’s grip on the region’s key shipping lanes. West Texas Intermediate closed at just below $104 per barrel, while Europe’s Brent crude soared more than 6% to about $108. Murban crude out of the United Arab Emirates hiked 5% to nearly $123. The surge came as the Iran War heats up, with The Wall Street Journal breaking news that Tehran is once again manufacturing ballistic missiles to make good on its promise to retake at least partial control of another key waterway, the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday morning, the Houthis ousted Yemeni government forces from the port city of Mokha, giving the militant army a better position from which to attack ships passing through the Red Sea. By evening, satellite images began circulating of smoke billowing from the East-West Pipeline that spans Saudi Arabia, which serves as the kingdom’s primary means of routing oil around the conflict zone at the Strait of Hormuz. If U.S. crude prices remain lower than the other global benchmarks, it’s because America is on track for record production this year, according to a new analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But that has done little to prevent diesel from hitting $6 per gallon for the first time in U.S. history, at what my colleague Matthew Zeitlin called “the worst time.”
Oddly enough, this may be the first perfect time for the Trump administration to cut an oil deal that can shore up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Back in March, the U.S. agreed to release 172 million barrels to ease soaring oil prices after the war began. Some 39 million barrels have not yet been delivered. If the Department of Energy sells the barrels through an emergency drawdown instead of a trade, as it did with previous releases, and simultaneously agrees to buy back oil at the lower prices the futures market is trading at now, the Trump administration can bring in an even bigger profit. That profit can in turn go to the $230 million backlog of physical repairs needed on the actual infrastructure that stores the U.S. crude reserve. That’s the proposal pitched in a new policy memo out yesterday from the think tank Employ America. “There’s a real opportunity where, if we’re going to have releases, you can yield this profit in dollar terms that could actually pay for a lot of upgrades that the asset needs,” Arnab Datta, Employ America’s managing director of policy implementation, told me by phone last night. “This could be enough to permanently build the SPR to be fully equipped for the country for the coming decades.”
The South Korean government is weighing a $120 billion investment in the U.S. that will include building eight nuclear reactors as part of a trade pact set to be unveiled later this month. At least for the first four units, Korea JoongAng Daily reported, the Koreans would build two and the U.S. would finance the others. The exact technology is up for debate. Citing unnamed government sources in Seoul, the newspaper said South Korea wants to build a pair of APR1400s, the Korean reactor that U.S. developer Westinghouse accused of ripping off its AP1000 design. As a result of a settlement between Westinghouse and South Korea’s state nuclear company, the Koreans can’t build more APR1400s in key markets such as Europe or North America. But Seoul appears to believe there could be an exception for a domestic project in the U.S. The two U.S.-backed units, as my colleague Robinson Meyer’s reporting from earlier this year suggests, would likely be AP1000s.
China, meanwhile, just unveiled the new version of its AP1000 rival, the Hualong One. At an industry conference in Shenzhen this week, the state-owned China General Nuclear revealed an upgraded reactor that Beijing explicitly plans to start shopping around for exports, marking one of the clearest signals yet that the People’s Republic is getting into selling atomic power plants overseas. So far, China has only exported its nuclear technology to Pakistan, leaving Russia to dominate the market. “The upgraded reactor design not only cements China’s self-reliance in cutting-edge nuclear engineering, but also dramatically elevates the commercial appeal of Chinese nuclear solutions in international tenders,” Lin Boqiang, head of the China Institute for Studies in Energy Policy at Xiamen University, told the state-controlled China Daily. “By driving down full lifecycle capital and maintenance costs while raising safety standards, it positions China as an increasingly indispensable partner in the global clean energy transition.”
You may recall from yesterday’s newsletter that Google has inked a first-of-a-kind deal with the Finnish utility Fortum to buy up to half the power produced at a major nuclear station, helping to finance its life extension through 2050. While power purchase agreements are common in the U.S., this type of corporate deal is new for Europe. Not everyone is pleased. The agreement is part of a broader $15 billion investment the tech giant is making into data center infrastructure in the Nordic nation. “A national permitting system for new data center investments would be needed. At the moment, no one is really looking after the overall picture,” Centre Party leader Antti Kaikkonen, whose centrist party is the second-largest opposition group in parliament in Helsinki, told Reuters.
In France, meanwhile, the national utility EDF has found “no major technical obstacles” to extending the operating lives of 32 reactors beyond 60 years, according to the European energy publication Montel.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Brazil is rich in oil and pumping record volumes of the stuff. Wind and solar are expanding rapidly. And even the country’s tiny nuclear sector is eyeing an expansion as part of a bigger push into mining. But hydroelectricity is the backbone of the Brazilian grid. Unlike the U.S., where hydro faces drought and permitting problems, Brazil’s sector is expanding and China wants a piece of the action. Spic Brasil, a subsidiary of China’s State Power Investment Corporation, signed a $272 million deal Thursday to expand the São Simão Dam in north São Paulo state, Reuters reported. The upgrade will add 310 megawatts of power to the plant by 2030.
Six months after closing a $140 million Series B, Heron Power has unveiled a $60 million credit line backed by J.P Morgan and TriplePoint Capital. The startup founded by former Tesla executive Drew Baglino is focused on next-generation transformers and other grid equipment. The company is now adding Zach Kirkhorn, Tesla’s former chief financial officer, to its board of directors. “A strong balance sheet and bench of advisors is key as we move from engineering to scale,” Baglino said in a press release. In June, as I told you at the time, Heron made a manufacturing deal with the South Korean giant LG Energy Solution.
The most abundant element in the universe is becoming an increasingly abundant clean fuel. The global capacity for clean hydrogen production has so far grown to 1.7 million metric tons per year in 2026, and is on track to more than double next year as new projects come online. That’s according to the Hydrogen Council, the world’s largest trade group for the fuel. But Hydrogen Insight noted that demand by 2030 “remains uncertain.”
A new study suggests skeptical voters don’t respond to such urgent language — while climate-concerned voters find it depressing.
We have a fascinating new project to share with you today. It gets to the heart of the question: Is there anything that can make Americans care about climate change right now?
Starting last year, Heatmap commissioned Embold Research to study what U.S. voters currently think about climate change — what messages are connecting with Americans today and which ones are falling flat.
It’s out now. I wasn’t directly involved in this research — other members of our team led it — but I think the results are interesting, useful, and worth your attention. (Embold Research is a frequent research partner of ours, too: They conduct our data center polling.)
The report divvied the electorate into three buckets — registered voters who are already persuaded about climate change, those who are persuadable, and skeptics who are less likely to be convinced — and examines what they believe about politics, energy, and the environment.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
In the study’s first phase, for instance, we asked more than 3,200 Americans to rank 11 different issues in their relative importance. Just over 50% of Americans think climate change is “very” or “extremely important” — and while that may sound encouraging, it actually means that climate change ranked last among the 11 issues we tested.
“The environment” ranks much higher among the three cohorts, with 70% of Americans considering it at least “very” important. The economy, jobs, inflation, and the cost of living dominate voter concerns.
What’s interesting, though, is that these questions of issue importance reverse among the group of “persuaded” Americans. This group believes climate change to be among the most dire problems facing the United States. They’re concerned about the economy too, to be clear — but they also rank healthcare costs, the environment, and threats to democracy more highly than other groups. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, this group identifies overwhelmingly as Democrats.)
My colleague Jeva Lange has more on another finding from the research: why voters don’t believe politicians when they say clean energy is the cheapest form of energy available. You should read her story — but before we go, I want to highlight one more finding from the study.
In the study’s second phase, Embold Research called back 15 of the respondents from the first poll and held in-depth interviews with them about their beliefs on climate, politics, and what messages they responded well to (and which ones turned them off). Then it surveyed a new sample of more than 2,100 Americans, using lessons from the interviews to inform their questions.
One lesson from those phases: Calling climate change a “crisis” or “catastrophe” fell flat among voters — but for different reasons among each cohort.
For voters who are already persuaded about climate change’s dangers, the framing is demotivating. Those people are already worried about climate change, and so hearing that more informed advocates are worried about a climate “crisis” or “catastrophe” just makes them more numb and depressed.
Skeptics, meanwhile, think the language is meant to manipulate them. And for voters who could be persuaded about climate change, talk of a “crisis” conflicts with their observation of gradual change and punctuated equilibrium.
That message sits at odds with how Democratic politicians and issue advocates talked about climate change in the first few years of this decade, obviously. And it points to another interesting finding: Even when American voters are skeptical of climate change as an issue area, they still generally care about the environment.
This new report is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how American voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.
New polling by Heatmap and Embold Research shows where one of climate advocates’ favorite arguments for renewables is falling short.
It’s the million-dollar question of clean energy advocacy: How do you persuade climate change skeptics to love renewables?
For years, the clean energy industry has treated the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new electricity as its messaging trump card. This argument has the advantage of being true. Yes, there is nuance, room for debate, and always the possibility that things could change dramatically in the future. But this summer, the investment bank Lazard reconfirmed what the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the International Renewable Energy Agency — and plenty of other independent analyses — had found before it: that wind and solar energy are, on the whole, cheaper than fossil fuels.
And yet according to new polling and focus group conversations conducted by Heatmap News and Embold Research, the affordability argument barely moves the needle for the segment of the American public that most needs convincing. More than two-thirds (78%) of voters who are “doubtful” or “dismissive” of climate change — a population segment described by the Yale Program on Climate Communications and that we have labeled as “skeptics” — told us they believe that advocates for wind and solar energy exaggerate how cheap the sources have become (a mere 17% disagreed).
Even for those in the middle who are “persuadable” on climate change (as opposed to the “persuadeds,” who describe themselves as “alarmed” about it), an affordability argument doesn’t land cleanly — 62% believed the claims are exaggerated compared to 24%. In fact, a majority of all voters — 55% — told us that wind and solar are only cost-competitive with oil and gas because of subsidies, even as 75% acknowledge that oil and gas companies get government help lowering costs, too.
Inflation Reduction Act postmortems have a tendency to hand-wring about the Biden administration and its proxies’ lack of success pitching the affordability angle to the American public. Our polling backed up some of this. The pervasive conviction seems to be that the economic upsides of renewable energy aren’t real: 57% of all voters (and 78% of the subset of climate change skeptics) said clean energy advocates exaggerate how cheap wind and solar have become.
But as clean energy advocates look ahead to what to try the next time, our polling offers a cautionary note: The messenger, not just the message, needs a tweak. Independent scientists and researchers were the only group trusted by a majority of voters (63%), and even then, skeptics remained difficult to break through with, as less than a third putting their trust in any messenger at all.
If there’s a bright spot in our polling, it’s that attacks on clean energy have also apparently failed to gain traction. When we asked voters in a separate poll what they think is driving their bills higher, clean energy was among the least identified factors. Just 31% of voters blamed the renewable energy industry, compared with 58% who picked out new data center construction, 55% for the oil and gas industry, 52% for the aging electrical grid, and 48% for rising electricity demand. Our polling appears to describe, then, an electorate that doesn’t blame clean energy for raising electricity bills, but also doesn’t buy the messaging that it could help bring them down.
Breaking through with skeptics and persuadables is obviously the key for turning public opinion in favor of clean energy. In pursuit of that goal, Embold conducted interviews with voters to better understand where the potential openings might be for clean energy messaging to break through — and to identify the kind of language that might hamper that goal. But even after synthesizing the findings and crafting a political message designed to appeal to skeptics’ concerns — one that highlighted the falling cost of renewable electricity alongside arguments about energy security and job creation — a mere 7% of skeptics found it “extremely believable.” “Without my tax dollars, [renewables are] too expensive,” one Trump voter told us. “It will all be in a landfill in 20 years!” (Note that “skeptics” isn’t a political designation, although 89% of them told us they voted for President Trump in the last election.)
Heatmap’s polling offered a more pessimistic view of the electorate compared to comparable polling by other groups, which have found that messages about bringing down electricity bills via increasing clean energy resonate across the broad political spectrum. “We obviously do a fair amount of phone polling, and we’ve been surprised how positive people have been on clean energy and how much they see it as a central part of the solution to the energy affordability crisis that everybody is feeling,” Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at the advocacy and communications organization Climate Power, told me. (Climate Power’s poll notably looks at the whole electorate — skeptics, persuadables, and persuadeds alike — rather than segmenting their findings for more specific messaging purposes.) “But,” he agreed, “certainly there are holdouts.”
Just 20% of the skeptics Embold surveyed, for instance, told us that seeing a comparison of what families saved on their electricity bills after installing rooftop solar would improve their opinion of the technology’s affordability — and 54% said nothing could convince them that solar was affordable. A full 75% of skeptics also agreed with the statement that clean energy technologies such as rooftop solar, electric heat pumps, and electric vehicles have a high enough upfront cost that the savings over time wouldn’t be “worth it.” When asked about utility-scale generation, skeptics viewed nuclear, coal, and natural gas as the least expensive options, with wind being the most expensive, followed by solar.
I asked Lee at Climate Power if he thinks it’s worth trying to reach these entrenched climate skeptics, who make up 22% of the electorate according to our polling. “To the extent that there are limited resources, that’s probably not where you spend all your time,” he said. “You shoot for people that are at least a little bit open to it — but who might be the neighbors of [the skeptics],” he said.
“If that neighbor gets solar panels on their roof, and suddenly they’re walking around the neighborhood telling people their electricity bill was $0 last month, that’s going to have a lot more effect on a person who’s entrenched than hearing a political message from a political group,” Lee went on.
Among people who said they don’t have or can’t afford solar, just 28% told us that “seeing data showing how much money families save on their electricity bills” with solar would help convince them on its affordability. That beat out tax credits (24%), lower upfront costs (23%), financing options (19%) — and yes, “hearing about a neighbor or friend who saved money after getting solar,” which only 12% of people said might change their minds. And though only 20% of skeptics said being shown bill data would change their opinion, bill data was also the only messaging approach that ranked at or near the top of all groups alike.
Unsurprisingly, the “persuadables” group turned out to be more responsive on the question of whether clean energy is affordable. More than a quarter (27%) were receptive to bill savings data, and 60% said they trusted scientists as messengers. But crafting that message is still an uphill battle with the demographic: When Embold tailored a statement intended to move the group, fewer than three in 10 actually found it convincing.
Winning on messaging about clean energy affordability, then, is far more complicated than simply laying out facts and comparisons of renewables in a speech or advertisement. Being asked the question in a poll is not the same as a real-world test case, of course, but, but the wrong messenger risks alienating the people who most need to be convinced, our research shows. Proof needs to be local and tailored — perhaps an impossible ask of a national or even state-level general campaign.
Cost, as a message, is still a winner, in other words. But the window for communicating on it is far narrower than many advocates likely realize. As one 2024 third-party voter told us after reading Embold’s three tailored messages on clean energy, “I don’t really like any of them. They all seem to just be telling me the ‘truth,’ but I don’t know the truth without evidence.”
This is the first in a series of Heatmap reports on how U.S. voters view climate, clean energy, and sustainability issues. If you'd like to receive our latest updates, downloadable reports, and invitations for special briefings, please fill out this form.