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:
On one important way we’ll remember the 46th president of the United States.
What is so striking, in immediate retrospect, about many of Joe Biden’s accomplishments as president is how many of them depended on him.
Democrats had tried and failed for 30 years to pass a climate law through the Senate. Biden succeeded.
Now Biden, the 46th president of the United States, is dropping out of the presidential race. He announced the news today on the social network X, endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris, who will now presumably take over the party’s nomination.
Biden has not done everything climate activists wanted. He has not declared a “climate emergency,” a legally controversial maneuver that could let him order individual companies to change their behavior and spend funds without Congress’s approval. And he has seemed flummoxed by how to sell his decarbonization program to the public without ignoring the economy’s ongoing dependence on fossil fuels. During his presidency, American oil and natural gas production has hit an all-time high, and the country has become the world’s largest fossil fuel exporter. Biden has not really advertised that fact, which would be popular, but he hasn’t run away from it, either — America’s achievement of energy dominance has sat in an odd, under-noticed spot in the discourse.
But Biden will leave office with easily the strongest climate record of any president — and one of the stronger environmental records, generally, in decades. Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in clean energy and decarbonization in American history. It is the first U.S. law that ties clean electricity incentives directly to the country’s carbon emissions, ensuring that tax credits will remain in place until the country hits its goals. But more broadly, he oversaw a revitalization of American industrial strategy, passing the bipartisan infrastructure law and CHIPS and Science Act, which both funded or expanded climate-friendly programs.
His administration also moved quickly to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using executive authority. In the past three years, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun to restrict heat-trapping emissions from power plants, cars, trucks, and oil and gas infrastructure. He also paused the government’s approval of new permits for liquified natural gas export terminals, although that pause has since been overturned by a federal court.
Could another president have accomplished as much? Even though the Inflation Reduction Act is largely the product of a Democratic Senate — of lawmakers drafting text on the issues that they know best — making that into law required Biden’s personal credibility with the labor movement and the party’s cadre of older, working class voters. It is difficult, if not impossible to imagine Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia — one of the chamber’s decisive votes in 2022 — negotiating and voting for the IRA without Biden’s persona. Biden could talk about the law’s aims to revitalize labor, could cast infrastructure and clean energy as jobs programs, without projecting the condescension or cross-class voyeurism that younger Democrats might have summoned.
His sense — which seemed to be held too by his most successful chief of staff, Ron Klain — that politics is above all a game of coalition management meant he was able to keep the fragile Democratic Party in line through the process. Biden often seemed, as his biographer Franklin Foer, put it, a man from a different time — “the last politician.”
But a tension between policy success and political setback has also defined Biden’s presidency. Again and again, he would pull off some difficult domestic policy — and then fail to communicate it to voters. He was foiled, in part, by the high inflation that plagued the U.S. economy throughout the first years of his term. But as his presidency went on, Biden also seemed to struggle with communication specifically. He never successfully sold voters — and specifically young people — on the value of his administration or on his climate accomplishments. As I wrote earlier this month, even voters who say they prioritize climate change told pollsters that they knew little about the IRA. That was and remains a tremendous missed opportunity, especially since — regardless of what voters say or know — a Trump administration and a Republican majority would gleefully gut the IRA if given the chance.
Now the Democratic party and its politicians must pick up where Biden’s team leaves off and defend his domestic climate accomplishments. Many of the IRA’s investments — and the ultimate fate of the EPA’s crackdown on greenhouse gas pollution — will be left to Harris to fight for. Whether she can convince voters that they are worth supporting will determine the long term success of America’s most important decarbonization policy — and whether it, or any climate policy, can survive the country’s deteriorating politics.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On NRC drama, Big Tech’s thirst, and Uplight’s for-sale sign
Current conditions: From Japan to California, the Pacific is preparing for tsunamis after one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded struck the eastern coast of Russia • The Deep South is bracing for stifling temperatures • Hurricane Iona, the first named storm of the 2025 hurricane season in the Central Pacific, has reached Category 3 strength as it passes south of Hawaii.
It’s official: The Trump administration is going after the endangerment finding. The 2009 decision that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human life established the federal government’s legal right to rein in planet-heating emissions under the Clean Air Act and is the bedrock to virtually all national climate regulation. A rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday would scrap the finding and wipe out existing greenhouse gas rules on automobiles and heavy trucks. Also on Tuesday, the Department of Energy issued a report that “concludes that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected.”
The outcome of the rollback in the near term is likely years of lawsuits. As Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman told Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo: “It doesn’t take effect for 30 days after it’s final. But yes, at that point, they get sued. These rules go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because that’s what the Clean Air Act says, and usually it would take about a year or so for a D.C. Circuit decision to happen. So now you’re in 2027. You can see the timeline on this stretching out.” In followup remarks by email, Freeman said: “From a legal perspective, the most aggressive argument they’re making is that they CANNOT regulate GHG emissions at all. If the Supreme Court agrees with that, a future administration can’t fix this. The backup arguments are more subtle and say, we have DISCRETION to use a different method to calculate a contribution toward endangerment, and we can consider many things other than science when making the endangerment finding. If the courts buy these arguments, a future administration could reverse course and rebuild.”
Since President Donald Trump first appointed Annie Caputo to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2017, the Republican has made a name for herself as an industry-friendly champion of faster deployments of new reactors. Reappointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, her term stretches through 2026. But on Tuesday, Caputo resigned, as I reported yesterday as a midday scoop in my Substack newsletter, Field Notes. The official reason she gave in the email she sent NRC staff is that the time had come to “more fully focus on my family.” But Caputo’s exit comes amid major political upheaval at what was once an oasis of bipartisan consensus.
In May, Trump proposed overhauling the way the NRC has long assessed the health risk from radiation as part of his four executive orders on nuclear power. Last month, in a move that critics decried as an illegal stretch of the White House’s authority over an independent agency, Trump fired Christopher Hanson, the Democratic commissioner who previously held the chair position. Earlier this month, E&E News reported that the Department of Government Efficiency representative detailed to the NRC had told the commission the White House expected it to “rubber stamp” new reactor designs that already gained approval from the departments of Defense or Energy. Emmet Penney at the conservative think tank FAI told me that if Caputo’s departure signals “radical changes” in the future, then the Trump administration’s efforts could backfire and lead to an “own-goal for energy dominance.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
At least 34 factories or mineral refineries totaling more than $30 billion in investment have been paused, delayed, or canceled since Trump took office. That’s according to a new report from researchers at Wellesley College. “When you look at the projects that are slowing down, it’s all up and down the supply chain,” Jay Turner, an environmental studies professor who leads the database, told Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer.
A chart from the study.The Big Green Machine
The picture isn’t entirely bleak for EVs, at least not yet. Another 68 projects have advanced in the past six months, representing $24 billion in investment and more than 33,000 jobs.
Earlier this year, the lobby group Data Center Coalition and Facebook-owner Meta each asked the Trump administration to loosen permitting for data centers under the Clean Water Act. In an executive order unveiled last week, Wired reports that Trump responded by proposing a set of specific recommendations that mirror what the industry requested.
If implemented, the effects would vary by project, environmental lawyers told Wired. But the move comes amid increased scrutiny of data centers’ thirst for water. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that a town’s wells ran dry after Meta broke ground on a new data center in Georgia.
In 2023, the startup Uplight tightened its grip on the distributed energy resource management market by acquiring the AI software company AutoGrid from Schneider Electric. Now Uplight is looking to sell itself. The company is pitching itself as “an AI-enhanced, full-stack platform built for the grid’s new demand,” according to a scoop yesterday from Latitude Media’s Maeve Allsup. With electricity demand surging and the aging grid heaving under pressure from extreme weather, technology to harness the solar panels, batteries, and other energy resources traditional utility infrastructure struggles to tap into is becoming crucial to avoiding blackouts.
Beyond Meat is finally getting beyond meat. The company plans to shed the flesh reference in its name this week as it launches its new Beyond Ground product that promises more protein than ground beef. “With this launch,” Fast Company’s Clint Rainey reported, “Beyond Meat is becoming merely Beyond and turning its focus away from only mimicking animal proteins to letting plant-based proteins speak for themselves. The radical move is cultural, agricultural, and financial.”
Rob and Jesse take stock of all the trends threatening to push up power bills.
In the next few years, the United States is going to see the fastest growth in electricity demand since the 1970s. And that’s only the beginning of the challenges that our power grid will face. When you step back, virtually every trend facing the power system — such as the coming surge in liquified natural gas exports or President Trump’s repeal of wind and solar tax credits — threatens to constrain the supply of new electricity.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk about why they’re increasingly worried about a surge in electricity prices. What’s setting us up for an electricity shortfall? What does the recent auction in the country’s largest electricity market tell us about what’s coming? And what would a power shock mean for utility customers, the economy, and decarbonization?
Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: None of these trends guarantee that electricity prices will go up, but suffice it to say, by the end of President Trump’s term, we could be exporting one fifth, right? 20%, 25%. And so that is a huge increase, and going to increase demand for U.S. natural gas supplies. How the supply side of U.S. natural gas responds is still an open question.
But even that isn’t the only trend. At the same time, the president’s tariffs, specifically on inputs to production — so copper, steel — have gone into effect. They’ve remained in effect. And what we’ve seen is that for these key ingredients and components to build more grid infrastructure, prices have gone up. I think steel prices have doubled, copper prices have increased. It doesn’t seem like those prices are coming down anytime soon.
And so just the raw ingredients that are required to produce, to expand the grid, and to increase electricity supply and electricity capacity are going to be more expensive in the world we’re living in than in the counterfactual world.
Jesse Jenkins: Yeah, I think if you go further upstream, too, there’s some — partly because of the tariffs, partly because of the uncertain trade environment, the uncertain macroeconomic environment, we’re not exactly seeing the oil and gas industry pouring capital into expanding natural gas supplies.
So, you could argue, and I’ve heard the folks from the American Gas Association argue this, that there’s no problem with expanding LNG exports as long as we expand supply to match that. And there’s some truth to that — except that we expect supply curves to be increasing, meaning the more we produce of something, in order to get incremental production up, we have to spend a little bit more per unit of energy we produce. That’s sort of characteristic of most markets.
So sure, we could increase our supply by 10% or 20%, but that would also require paying a higher cost per trillion cubic feet, or million cubic meters, or whatever unit you want of natural gas we get out of the ground in the U.S. And that alone would put upward pressure on prices. But if the U.S. is also not expanding supply at the same time that we’re expanding exports, then that just straight-up drives prices up.
We would see, basically, a delayed response from the market, from the supply side of the market, to those prices. This is partly why natural gas prices are so volatile. Prices spike — that sends a signal to add supply, but you can’t turn on the spigot overnight. You’ve got to drill new wells, identify them, get drill rigs out there, and open up production, and in some cases even expand pipelines to get that supply to market. All that takes several years. And so there’s a lag time there that often leads to these spikes in gas prices going quite a bit above what you would expect, the kind of marginal supply curve picture alone to reveal.
And I think if you look at the rig counts, declining rig counts, stagnating production, and sort of the secular decline of our conventional gas resources and oil resources, which are all on decline curves. As we pump more oil and gas out of the ground, the pressure falls and we get less and less from those wells. All that points to the potential for a relatively constrained supply of natural gas in the near term exactly at the same time that we’re ramping up LNG exports.
Mentioned:
Jesse on The Ezra Klein Show
From Rob: The Electricity Affordability Crisis Is Coming
U.S. power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, per EIA
Why the EIA expects natural gas prices to rise
The Messy Truth of America’s Natural Gas Exports
Governor Josh Shapiro’s legal action to constrain power prices
Jesse’s upshift; Rob’s downshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Gain real-world skills, build strong networks, and keep working while you learn. Explore the year-long Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Learn more here.
Join clean energy leaders at RE+ 25, September 8–11 in Las Vegas. Explore opportunities to meet rising energy demand with the latest in solar, storage, EVs, and more at North America’s largest energy event. Save 20% with code HEATMAP20 at re-plus.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
A conversation with Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman about life after the endangerment finding.
The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal on Tuesday to reverse its own conclusion that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare. Known as the “endangerment finding,” this 2009 determination initially compelled the agency to regulate carbon emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act. But the agency has since used it as the basis for many of its efforts to tackle climate change, including emissions limits on power plants, oil and gas operations, and aviation.
If the reversal is finalized as written — and survives court challenges — the EPA will no longer have the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide from the tailpipes of cars or trucks, invalidating the vehicle standards issued by the Biden administration last year.
While other greenhouse gas regulations wouldn’t automatically disappear, the agency could easily use the same arguments to repeal them. Indeed, the agency said that it has already initiated or intends to initiate “separate rulemakings that will address any overlapping issues” related to other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as power plants.
EPA’s primary justification for reversing course, detailed in a 302-page document, is that the Clean Air Act is designed to target air pollution that endangers public health “through local or regional exposure,” and therefore that it cannot be used to rein in greenhouse gases “based on global climate change concerns.” Richard Revesz, a professor of law at New York University and former Biden official, told me this was “breathtakingly broad,” and said that it was “inconsistent with 55 years of regulation under the Clean Air Act. That limitation was never understood to be there.”
The EPA also put forth a host of other legal and scientific arguments, “basically throwing the kitchen sink at this issue,” Revesz said. The proposal asserts that the EPA should have considered the downstream costs of making the finding, as well as weighed the potential benefits of a warmer climate. In a section entitled “Alternative Rationale for Proposed Rescission,” the agency attempts to poke holes in the scientific evidence that climate change is a threat to public health, concluding that the research is uncertain. It cites a report from the Department of Energy, also released Tuesday, that says the warming caused by greenhouse gases is not as bad for the economy as people once thought, and that regulating such emissions will have “undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate.”
The proposal cherry-picks data and misinterprets scientific findings. For example, it says that recent evidence suggests that the temperature projections EPA used to make the endangerment finding were “unduly pessimistic,” citing a 2020 paper by climate scientist Zeke Hausfather. But Hausfather has already posted on social media that this is wrong — his paper supported the EPA’s 2009 temperature projections.
My inbox is currently full of statements from legal experts, scientists, and activists adamant that the administration’s arguments are baseless. The agency will be taking public comments on the proposal through September 21, and hold at least two public hearings on August 19 and 20. To get a sense of what to expect over the coming months and years as a result of this move, I called up Jody Freeman, the director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard and a former White House counsel for the Obama administration. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
What will EPA have to do in order to finalize this proposal?
What they do is put it out for public comment. There’ll be a huge reaction to this, and so they’ll have a very big set of comments that they’re going to have to go through, which then will take them several months at a minimum. And they’re not necessarily going to be in a rush, right? At a minimum, we’re going to be getting into 2026 before we’d see a final rule. And then the lawsuits would start.
Other than just responding to the public comments, are there certain things that they would have to demonstrate to finalize this determination?
The normal process is you have to respond to the most serious and relevant comments. So if the comment says, The claims you’re making about the science are wrong, they’d have to respond to that. The normal course is they come back with a final rule that explains why they’re doing what they’re doing, and why they either didn’t agree with the comments, or they do agree with some of them, and they’ve adapted the proposal.
And as you said, then the lawsuits would start.
It doesn’t take effect for 30 days after it’s final. But yes, at that point, they get sued. These rules go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because that’s what the Clean Air Act says, and usually it would take about a year or so for a D.C. Circuit decision to happen. So now you’re in 2027. You can see the timeline on this stretching out. And if you ultimately think this could go to the Supreme Court, you can imagine that’s another year away. So basically, for the rest of President Trump’s term, you really shouldn’t expect to see enforcement or action on federal climate rules.
Even if the EPA hadn’t taken this step, wouldn’t that still have been the case, since the Trump administration is fighting the power plant rules and the vehicle emissions rules?
Well, you could see them dragging their feet enforcing these standards. Of course, they would get sued if they weren’t enforcing vehicle emission standards against the auto industry. There would be efforts to force them to enforce. But it’s more serious and more long term damage for them to try to rescind the underlying endangerment finding because depending on what the Supreme Court does with that, it could knock out a future administration from trying to bring it back. Now that would be the nuclear option. That would be their best case scenario. I don’t think that’s likely, but it’s possible.
At a minimum, let’s say they don’t win everything, but the court says they can do this for now — they have the discretion, the flexibility not to make this finding. Another administration can come back and make it and restore the rules. But that would take, again, several years. So even if they lose, they win.
If they do finalize this, would the other lawsuits that are going on around the power plant rules and the vehicle emissions rules automatically be dropped?
There are a few lawsuits that were challenging the Biden-era rules, but the Trump administration asked the courts to hold them in abeyance because they said, We’re going to go revisit all those rules and replace them. So those lawsuits aren’t moving forward anyway at the moment. It would probably be true that the administration, in taking this action, wants to set up a situation where it can go back into court and say, Well, now all these challenges are moot. We don’t have any authority to regulate anyway. But for now, they’re all on hold.
Are there other regulations this will affect besides those for vehicles and power plants?
The methane rule for oil and gas facilities is more of a question mark because they don’t seem to be announcing they’ll eliminate it. It’s possible they push off compliance. It’s possible they make the rule weaker. But there are a couple reasons why they might not rescind that.
One is that there’s a very complicated history of this rule. Congress disapproved of a weaker methane rule the first time around in the Trump administration, and because of that congressional action, there’s a barrier there. They can’t easily just rescind that methane rule. They’ve got more legal hurdles to jump through.
The other reason is there are some good reasons to regulate methane that have to do with ozone pollution and pollution that isn’t just about climate change. And the third reason is the oil and gas industry might actually want a methane rule. They might want a weak one, but they might want one federally. So that’s a bit separate, and you have to be on the lookout for them handling methane differently.
Could a future EPA just develop stronger pollution standards for other pollutants that would indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
It’s true that when you set toxics standards, for example, for power plants to control their toxic pollution, a side benefit is those power plants become more efficient, and that means they control their carbon pollution, too. But this is more around the margins. This is not taking big bites out of power plant greenhouse gas emissions or big bites out of car and truck emissions. It would be a much, much, much weaker version of what you can do with the endangerment finding.
So if the endangerment finding is reversed, is the only path for future regulation for Congress to explicitly tell EPA that it must regulate greenhouse gases?
That’s one option, but it may not necessarily be the only one. It depends on where this lands after it moves through the courts. If the Supreme Court said, You, Trump EPA, you can rescind this finding, but another administration could bring it back, then another administration can say, Well, we think the science is clear, and we’re going to make the finding again and issue these rules. So it all depends on how far the court goes. If it’s going to agree with EPA, how much will it agree? But if the court were to essentially say, this agency has no authority now and forever to make this finding, well then yes, you need new law.
Will the overturning of the Chevron doctrine also play into this?
That’s another interesting one. So what they have to do now is argue that greenhouse gases might be pollutants, but we don’t have to regulate them. And when they argue that we don’t have to regulate them, they’re going to be asking for a lot of deference. And so in that sense, they’re kind of asking for what Chevron used to give you — deference. But they don’t have Chevron anymore, so they’re going to have to say to the court, You should agree with our reading of this law. This is the best reading of this law, that we don’t have to regulate. They no longer can just say, you ought to defer to us under Chevron.
In that scenario, is it left to the court to decide?
It’s left to the court to say, your reading of the law is right. You have flexibility here, and you can decide you don’t need to regulate. The court would have to agree with their reading of the Clean Air Act.
Isn’t the endangerment finding more of a scientific question than a legal one?
Well, in making that scientific decision about what constitutes a danger to human health, there’s a lot of judgment in there. How do we interpret the science? Is it okay for us to say, well, there are a lot of good things that happen because of climate change? This is what they might do, right? They might say, The EPA, long ago, they ignored all the good stuff about climate change, and we think that’s really important. They might say some ludicrous stuff that leading scientists would think is completely wrong. But there’s some discretion in there about how you count the science and what you weigh, and they’re going to try to get the court to agree that they have a lot of flexibility in what method they use. That means the court will have to agree with them on how they read the law.
So they might say, We have flexibility to interpret the science, and the court might say, No, you don’t, the science is really clear. Then they might say, Okay, well even so, the U.S. contribution is so infinitesimally small that we don’t consider it a contribution to the problem. Now there, the court might say, Okay, you have discretion there. So it’s a little bit of a moving target, where at every opportunity they’re going to say, We have flexibility, don’t you agree?, and hope the court bites on one of those.