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:
The senator from West Virginia is retiring. Who will we think about now?

What can you say about Joe Manchin, perhaps the most important — and most complicated — American climate policy maker of the past decade?
Let’s start here: Soon, he won’t be a senator any more. On Thursday, Manchin announced that he will not pursue re-election in West Virginia in 2024.
“I’ve made one of the toughest decisions of my life and decided that I will not be running for re-election to the United States Senate,” he said in a video message. Instead, he said, he will be “traveling the country and speaking out to see if there is an interest in creating a movement to mobilize the middle and bring Americans together.”
We don’t have many details about what “mobilizing the middle” might look like; Manchin was recently said to be considering a third-party presidential run. If he did make a go for the White House, that would seemingly have disastrous consequences for Joe Biden’s re-election effort — and, in all likelihood, for climate action generally — because it could probably hand the 2024 race to Donald Trump.
But pending that possibility, Manchin’s decision immediately reframes several aspects of next year’s elections.
It means, first, that West Virginia Governor and serial coal-mine-safety violator Jim Justice will likely win Manchin’s seat, marking the end of a tectonic political realignment that saw the state go from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican.
Without West Virginia, Democrats’ path to a Senate majority now looks more like a tightrope: It requires Democrats to hold difficult seats in Ohio, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. Then the party needs to win in one additional state. But the pickings are slim. Are Texas or Florida really going to elect a Democrat to the Senate? Is Mississippi, Missouri, or Nebraska?
Manchin’s decision will, in other words, have big implications for what Democrats can and cannot do in government. Without a working Senate majority, Democrats will struggle to pass laws or appoint justices to the Supreme Court even if they control the House of Representatives and the White House.
But, of course, Manchin’s decision is even more profound because who he is — his anxieties, whims, and cognitive biases — has long had an outsized influence on legislation. Setting aside presidents and a few jurists, there may not be a recent Democratic policymaker whose personal views more closely shaped the law.
Manchin wielded power, above all, because he represented West Virginia, the most conservative state to send a Democrat to the Senate. That meant he was his caucus’s obvious marginal member and swing vote.
And you could tell. What other Democrat could get away with owning a coal plant while ostensibly overseeing the coal industry? (Manchin is the chairman of the Senate energy and natural resources committee.) What other Democrat could demand last-minute changes to an economic recovery package?
Manchin’s crowning legacy will be the Inflation Reduction Act, which is often described as “President Biden’s signature climate bill,” but which is smudged with Manchin’s fingerprints, too. As chairman of the Senate energy committee, Manchin had a good deal of de jure authority over the law; as the Senate’s swing vote, he had even more de facto power. The final bill text was hammered out in negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s team — who were essentially negotiating on behalf of the rest of the caucus — and Manchin’s team.
You can see it in the law’s final policies.
Some of the Inflation Reduction Act’s most generous subsidies will go to the nascent clean hydrogen industry, which Manchin has long nurtured. If hydrogen becomes an anti-environmental boondoggle on par with ethanol, then Manchin will bear a good deal of the blame; if it decarbonizes the American industrial sector, he should get some credit.
Likewise, Manchin is why the bill’s tax credits for electric vehicles do not incentivize union membership.
He is behind the law’s peculiar rules about exactly which industries and organizations can claim their subsidies as direct cash payments. He also shaped the design of its carbon-capture tax credits.
If there is something distinctive in the IRA, the odds are good that Manchin either insisted on it, approved it, or didn’t notice it.
But Manchin drove other climate and energy policy too. He cowrote the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 with Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. That law focused the federal government’s industrial policy on carbon management, clean hydrogen, and critical minerals — some of the same topics that would dominate the IRA. It also expanded the powers of the Loan Programs Office, the Department of Energy’s in-house bank.
He criticized the Environmental Protection Agency and sometimes voted to overturn its rules. He consistently opposed carbon taxes or pricing carbon in any way, all but ensuring the idea’s political death in the short-term. Even his Senate career more or less began with him taking aim — literally — at Obama’s climate bill. During his first race for Senate in 2010, Manchin ran a TV ad in which he shot a rifle at a stack of papers labeled “cap and trade bill” and promised to take on then-President Barack Obama’s proposal.
In short, if you thought about climate policy over the past decade, you wound up thinking quite a lot about the likes, dislikes, and peculiarities of Joe Manchin. What he might support or oppose mapped the frontier of political possibility in the United States. He was, in short, potentially the most influential force in shaping American climate policy during the 2010s. (Only Mary Nichols, who has been California’s chief air-pollution regulator since 2007, might match his importance.)
My first thought is that Manchin may soon join that list of capricious ex-senators — Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson come to mind — whose names, once synonymous with power itself, become the answer to bad trivia questions. But I have been thinking about Joe Manchin, 76, for a long time, and I expect to find it a hard habit to break. He is an ambitious, eccentric, and preternaturally lucky man. I suspect his next few decisions will prove even more important than those that have come before.
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: A series of tornadoes has flattened entire neighborhoods in central and southern Mississippi, causing what one pastor called “just total devastation” • The heat index across the northern half of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon could feel as high as 122 degrees Fahrenheit, raising the risk of heat stroke • There will be some hot moms in Phoenix this weekend when temperatures in Arizona’s sprawling capital top 108 degrees on Mother’s Day.
President Donald Trump’s attempts to kill the offshore wind industry through regulatory fiat have largely failed to hold up in court. But as the administration finds new success in paying off developers to abandon ocean leases for seaward turbines, it’s attempting the original playbook now on the onshore wind sector, holding up more than 150 projects by refusing to give out once-routine approvals from the Department of Defense. That includes projects that are nowhere near military bases or defense-related infrastructure, and comes despite the fact that U.S. policymakers across the political spectrum agree we need to bring as much new power online as quickly as we can to meet booming demand from data centers and electrification. “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry,” an energy lawyer told Heatmap’s Jael Holzman. “Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.” In other words: The bombardments may fail, but the siege can win..
When French energy giant TotalEnergies became the first offshore wind developer to take up Trump on his offer of $1 billion to abandon two projects back in March, the administration’s effort to kill off an industry Trump has personally opposed since long before he gained political power seemed to finally be catching a foothold following a series of legal retreats. By April, however, blowback to the deal had started building. Reporting from Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo found that the U.S. government’s agreement with Total didn’t actually mandate any new investments in fossil fuels, as the administration strongly implied, and that and that the payment may not have actually met the requirements to be drawn from a federal coffer designed to fund legal settlements. Shortly afterward, House Democrats announced plans to investigate Total’s contract with the government. This week, California regulators launched their own probe into one of two new developments that took up Trump’s offer, a floating offshore wind project that was set to be the first such project on the West Coast. Now one of the largest U.S. pension funds is reconsidering its stake in Total. Citing “significant concerns” over Total’s decision to cancel its two offshore wind leases and double down on fossil fuels, the New York State Common Retirement Fund said it would evaluate selling the $1.6 million stake in the company.
In a letter to Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné that the Financial Times reviewed, Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State comptroller and trustee of the retirement fund, said: “As the fund continually evaluates companies based on credible transition plans, portfolio companies’ backtracking may impact the fund’s risk assessment results and proxy voting decisions.” While “TotalEnergies had sought to be a leader in [the] energy transition,” he added, “now investors are left scratching their heads over how the board came to this decision to abandon that strategy and what it means for the future of the company and our stake in it.” In Total’s home country, the picture for offshore wind looks quite different. While Paris remains committed to expanding its world-leading nuclear fleet, a new floating offshore wind farm off France just started pumping electricity onto the grid.
Occidental Petroleum has once again pushed back the opening of the world’s largest carbon removal facility, with executives warning that they’re uncertain how quickly the delay can be resolved. Construction on the direct air capture megaproject in West Texas, known as Stratos, has been mostly complete for months. Last August, the company revised the start date to the end of the year. In February, Occidental said the operations would begin by the second quarter of this year. But in its first-quarter earnings call Wednesday, Richard Jackson, Occidental’s chief operating officer, who will take over for CEO Vicki Hollub when she retires at the end of this month, told analysts “the technology and process unit operations performed as expected.” He said the company had “identified an issue related to non-process components of the facility, unrelated to the technology” and was “currently evaluating the repair timeline and assessing the impact on the operations schedule,” according to Occidental’s official transcript of his remarks. When I emailed the company to ask for more details on what issues and specific components are holding up the project, a spokesperson responded: “We have nothing to offer beyond what Richard said that it’s non-process and we’ll provide an update next quarter.”
Make no mistake, it’s not all doom and gloom for DAC. Colorado and Wyoming this week signed an agreement to work together on carbon storage infrastructure. And a major breakthrough in Kenya “signals a new era” for geological storage of carbon dioxide, so heralded the Carbon Herald.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

The United States has expanded its sanctions on Cuba, forcing the Canadian miner that had been the Caribbean nation’s biggest foreign investor to flee as the Trump administration ramps up its effort to topple the 67-year-old communist regime and reassert Washington’s suzerainty over the island just 90 miles south of Florida. The new sanctions on Thursday, which came days after Trump broadened the U.S. embargo on Cuba, sent the price of shares in Canada’s Sherritt International Corporation tumbling 41% by the time the market closed in North America. For the past 32 years, the company has operated a nickel and cobalt mining operation on the island, providing one of Cuba’s few commercial lifelines into the global economy. While Sherritt said it had not yet been designated for sanctions, a listing “could occur at any time,” the company warned, and banks and other vendors might be “unable or unwilling” to keep supplying the firm. “In any event, the mere issuance of the executive order itself creates conditions that materially alter the corporation’s ability to operate in the ordinary course, including activities related to Sherritt’s Cuban joint venture operations,” Sherritt said in a statement on its website. “This is a massive blow to an already sinking economy,” Ricardo Torres, a leading Cuban-born economist at the American University in Washington, told the Financial Times.
The internal combustion engine is still the profit motor for Volkswagen. But when the world’s second-largest automaker reported its first-quarter earnings last week, the company said its latest electric vehicles are up to 80% as profitable as gasoline-powered alternatives. That’s according to a nugget InsideEVs highlighted this week from the investor update. Once Volkswagen launches its newest modular blueprint for its electric vehicle offerings — known internally as the Scalable Systems Platform, or SSP — the margins are expected to align more closely, said Arno Antlitz, the German auto giant’s chief financial officer. “We expect the margin to be fully comparable only with our future SSP platform,” he said.
Things are looking sunnier for what has long been the weakest sector of the American solar industry. SEG Solar, a Houston-based manufacturer, has announced plans to add 4 gigawatts of module production capacity to its factory in Texas’ largest city, creating a 6-gigawatt facility. The move comes as Elon Musk has vowed to dramatically scale up Tesla’s solar manufacturing capacity and First Solar builds its own 4-gigawatt facility.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.