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:
It’s the Obama playbook, but different.
It was — against all odds — an energy debate.
Just look at the statistics. The word “fracking” was mentioned 10 times. “Oil” came up seven times. Even “climate change,” which Donald Trump was not very eager to talk about, was mentioned four times. And while that may not seem like a lot for such a vast and globe-spanning problem, climate change came up only three times in all of 2016’s debates combined.
Even more than when talking about trade or inflation, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump used energy to make their economic vision concrete and meaningful to Americans. For Harris, that meant recognizing the scale of the country’s fossil fuel resources today while gesturing toward a cleaner and lower-carbon future that will produce (in theory, at least) lots of high-wage manufacturing jobs for America’s middle class. For Trump, the energy industry — and, really, the fossil fuel industry — is central to his fleshy, authoritarian vision of American strength. Seemingly any attempt to replace hydrocarbons with something cleaner or less polluting arises from nothing less than an elite conspiracy to weaken the country and sell out its people.
For such a stark contrast — and for such an outlandish contrast, to be clear — it was a surprisingly substantive debate. Which isn’t to say we learned much, especially about Trump. The Republican nominee was the same man we’ve seen for the past nine years, the same politician who has defined the extreme GOP position on global warming. Over the past near-decade, Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and has seemed to revel in emissions-increasing policies. That isn’t changing. Asked directly what he would do about climate change on Tuesday night, he did not address the question at all. Instead, he talked about how car factories are getting built in Mexico, and he claimed in a difficult-to-follow rant that Joe Biden is getting paid off by China.
About Harris, we learned far more. Harris struck a careful, moderate tone during the debate between the need for climate action and the ongoing importance of fossil fuel extraction. She spoke about the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate policy, but also discussed how it increased federal leasing for oil and gas. She spoke about climate change in terms of its higher everyday costs for Americans, and not — as Biden did — as an existential threat to the country.
“What we know is that [climate change] is very real,” she said. “You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences, who now is either being denied home insurance or [it] is being jacked up.”
She bragged about the Biden administration’s oil and gas record in the same breath as she discussed its enormous investments in clean energy. American oil and gas production is at an all-time high — it is higher, in fact, than Saudi Arabia’s — but I can’t remember hearing a Biden administration official bragging about that.
“I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels,” she said.
In a way, Harris has essentially returned to Obama’s 2012 “all of the above” energy policy. That approach remains unpopular with climate activists, who think it did too much for the oil and gas industry; personally, I think it’s an open question whether Obama actually believed in the “all of the above” approach or was subtly trying to help renewables all along. But more importantly, the underlying policy context is totally different now than it was 12 years ago: With the Inflation Reduction Act in place, the government can more easily bless all forms of energy development because it is, in fact, helping clean energy take root.
What’s most important, though — and what I hope climate advocates do not overlook — is that Harris’s tack here reflects the broad state of American public opinion. While most Americans want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they do not seem to want an energy revolution: More than two-thirds of Americans believe the country should use a mix of renewables and fossil fuels, according to the Pew Research Center, and less than a third believe the country should rely “entirely” on renewables. In the same poll, most Americans said they oppose federal rules that would aim to make electric vehicles half of all new cars sold by 2032.
This is not to say that Americans are big oil lovers. Most Americans think the country should prioritize various forms of zero-carbon energy development over fossil fuels. And while Republican support for renewables has dropped over the past few years — and has fallen furtherover the past few months, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote recently — a generation gap has emerged wherein younger Republicans are much more likely to champion solar and wind than older party members.
Even among seemingly environmental-aligned demographics, greater support exists for fossil fuels than one might expect. Most Democrats say they would not “favor” expanding fracking or offshore drilling — but about a quarterof Democratswould favor more fossil fuel drilling. So would roughly 45% of independents and, of course, a large majority of Republicans, according to Pew.
Of course, these facts of public opinion sit uneasily with what we know about climate change, which is that greenhouse gas emissions — and fossil fuel development with it — should plan to scale down soon. The International Energy Association has said that the most likely pathway for keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires the development of “no new long lead-time upstream oil or gas projects.” This observation provides less guidance for American policy makers than it might initially seem, because it is really focused on the opening of new, massive oil fields like Guyana’s. (The IEA also says, in almost the same breath, that “continued investment is required in some existing oil and gas projects,” which could possibly justify ongoing extraction from Texas’s well-established oil and gas fields.)
But even then, the non-negotiable fact would remain: The world must move away from fossil fuels. And the American people are not generally ready to do that today. The country wants something closer to an “all of the above” strategy than it wants a Green New Deal.
That strategy brings climate policy out of the ideological realm and into the pragmatic. Americans, polling suggests, like renewables in part because they will let the United States reduce its dependence on foreign oil, a popular idea in and of itself and talking point of both parties going back decades.
When Heatmap polled more than 5,000 Americans last month, more than half said that a “strong benefit” of a given clean energy project would be its ability to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil and natural gas. Among respondents, those putative energy independence benefits were the No. 2 most popular reason to support clean energy; the only more popular rationale for backing a project was that it would cut utility bills.
Harris directly echoed that appeal on Tuesday. “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil,” she said. “We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.”
I can’t remember Biden making an appeal like this. When he talks about clean energy or the IRA, he tends to focus on its potential to grow the economy. Harris did some of that on Tuesday, bragging about the 800,000 new manufacturing jobs created during her vice presidency. But her focus on the national interest — and on the Biden administration’s appreciation of the ongoing fossil boom — was new.
Such an approach is unlikely to help her appeal to climate activists and advocates, who want the government to affirmatively begin to shutter fossil capacity. The Sunrise Movement, a climate activist group, criticized Harris on Tuesday for spending “more time promoting fracking than laying out a bold vision for a clean energy future.”
What I’d advise those advocates to keep in mind is that their views are legitimately not very popular, and Harris is trying to win a very close election in a race that her team believes has potentially existential stakes for American democracy. She also remembers the 2020 primary, when she tacked left on virtually every issue — she promised to ban fracking, for instance — and still lost. (If that’s because many of the groups wound up backing Bernie Sanders in that primary, that only reinforces the view that she can’t win over those voters in the first place.)
Harris isn’t defying the left on every issue — she has resisted neoliberal dogma and pandered to the public’s views on price gouging, for instance, putting her more in line with the Democratic Party’s Elizabeth Warren wing. But unlike Biden, she refuses to pay an electoral price for backing left-wing policies. Indeed, she seems to believe that she cannot pay such a price and still win. If Harris is now bragging about her administration’s support for fossil fuels, if she is casting the Inflation Reduction Act as a law that helped fracking, that means climate activists have much more work to do to persuade the public on what they believe. The Democratic Party’s candidate will not do that persuasion for them. And in any case, activists are not going to convince the public to believe something in the next 54 days that they’ve failed to do in the past five years.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Between the budget reconciliation process and an impending vote to end California’s electric vehicle standards, a lot of the EV maker’s revenue stands to go poof.
It’s shaping up to be a very bad week for Tesla. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s draft budget proposal released Sunday night axes two of the primary avenues by which the electric vehicle giant earns regulatory credits. Congress also appears poised to vote to revoke California’s authority to implement its Zero-Emission Vehicle program by the end of the month, another key source of credits for the automaker. The sale of all regulatory credits combined earned the company a total of $595 million in the first quarter on a net income of just $409 million — that is, they represented its entire margin of profitability. On the whole, credits represented 38% of Tesla’s net income last year.
To add insult to injury, the House Ways and Means committee on Monday proposed eliminating the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 consumer EV tax credit, the used EVs tax credit, and the commercial EVs tax credit by year’s end. The move comes as part of the House’s larger budget-making process. And while it will likely be months before a new budget is finalized, with Trump seeking to extend his 2017 tax cuts and Congress limited in its spending ability, much of the IRA is on the chopping block. That is bad news for clean energy companies across the spectrum, from clean hydrogen producers to wind energy companies and battery manufacturers. But as recently as a few months ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was sounding cavalier.
After aligning himself with Trump during the election, Musk came out last year in support of ending the $7,500 consumer EV tax credit, along with all subsidies in all industries generally. He wrote on X that taking away the EV tax credit “will only help Tesla,” presumably assuming that while his company could withstand the policy headwinds, it would hurt emergent EV competitors even more, thus paradoxically helping Tesla eliminate its competition.
While it looks like Musk will get his wish, he probably didn’t account for a small but meaningful carveout in the Ways and Means committee proposal that allows the tax credit to stand through the end of 2026 for companies that have yet to sell 200,000 EVs in their lifetime. While Tesla’s sales figures are orders of magnitude beyond this, the extension will give a boost to its smaller competitors, as well as potentially some larger automakers with fewer EV sales to their credit.
A number of other provisions in the Ways and Means committee’s proposal spell bad news for Tesla and EV automakers on the whole. These include the elimination of the $4,000 tax credit for used EVs as well as the $7,500 tax credit for commercial EVs — which leased cars also qualify for. This second credit, often referred to as the “leasing loophole,” allows consumers leasing EVs to redeem the full tax credit even if their vehicle doesn’t meet the domestic content requirements for the buyer’s credit. The committee also wants to phase out the advanced manufacturing tax credit by the end of 2031, one year earlier than previously planned. While not a huge change, this credit incentivizes the domestic production of clean energy components such as battery cells, battery modules, and solar inverters — all products Tesla is heavily invested in.
The domestic regulatory credits that comprise such an outsize portion of Tesla’s profits, meanwhile, come from a mix of state and federal standards, all of which are under attack. These are California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle program, which sets ZEV production and sales mandates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emissions standards.
While the mandates differ in their ambition and implementation mechanisms, all three give automakers credits when they make progress toward EV production targets, fuel economy standards, or emissions standards; exceed these requirements, and automakers earn extra credits. Vehicle manufacturers can then trade those additional credits to carmakers that aren’t meeting state or federal targets. Since Tesla only makes EVs, it always earns more credits than it needs, and many automakers rely on buying these credits to comply with all three regulations.
It’s unclear as of now whether lawmakers have the authority to eliminate the federal fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards via budget reconciliation. A Senate stricture known as the Byrd Rule mandates that provisions align with the basic purpose of the reconciliation process: implementing budgetary changes; those with only “incidental” budgetary impacts can thus be deemed “extraneous” and excluded from the final bill. It’s yet to be seen how the standards in question will be categorized. At first blush, fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards are a stretch to meet the Byrd Rule, but that determination will take weeks, or even potentially months to play out.
What’s for sure is that California’s ZEV program cannot be eliminated through this process, as the program derives its authority from a Clean Air Act waiver, which was first granted to the state by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1967. This waiver allows California to set stricter emissions standards than those at the federal level because of the “compelling and extraordinary circumstances” the state faces when it comes to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles basin. California’s latest targets — which require all model year 2035 cars sold in the state to be zero emissions — have been adopted by 11 other states, plus Washington D.C.
These increasingly ambitious goals would presumably cause the tax credits market — and thus Tesla’s profits — to heat up as well, as most automakers would struggle to fully electrify in the next 10 years. But the House voted at the beginning of the month to eliminate California’s latest EPA waiver, granted in December of last year. Now, it’s up to the Senate to decide whether they want to follow suit.
To accomplish this task, Republicans have called upon a legislative process known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn newly implemented federal rules. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, for one, has been vocal about using the process to end California’s so-called “EV mandate,” writing in the Wall Street Journal last week that “it’s time for the Senate to finish the job.” And yet other Senate Republicans are reluctant to attempt to roll back California’s waiver. The Government Accountability Officeand the Senate Parliamentarian have both determined that the regulatory allowance ought not to be subject to the Congressional Review Act as it’s an EPA “order” rather than a “rule.” Going against this guidance could thus set a precedent that gives Congress a broad ability to gut executive-level rules.
During his first term, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stood in firm opposition to efforts to roll back fuel efficiency standards. But lately, as the administration has started turning its longstanding anti-EV rhetoric into actual policy, Trump’s new best friend has been relatively quiet. Tesla’s stock is down about 25% since Trump took office, as investors worry that Musk’s political preoccupations have kept him from focusing on his company’s performance. Not to mention the fact that Musk's enthusiastic support for Trump, major role in mass federal layoffs, and, well, whole personality have alienated his liberal-leaning customer base.
So while Musk may have staged a Tesla showroom on the White House lawn in March, awing the President with the ways in which “everything’s computer,” he’s presumably well aware of exactly how Trump’s policies — and his own involvement in them — stand to deeply hurt his business. Whether Tesla will make it through this regulatory onslaught and self-inflicted brand damage as a profitable company remains to be seen. But with Musk planning to slink away from the White House and back into the boardroom, and with House leaders hoping to complete work on the reconciliation bill by Memorial Day, we should start to get answers soon enough.
On gutting energy grants, the Inflation Reduction Act’s last legs, and dishwashers
Current conditions: Eighty of Minnesota’s 87 counties had red flag warnings on Monday, with conditions expected to remain dry and hot through Tuesday • 15 states in the South and Midwest will experience “extreme” humidity this week • It will be 99 degrees Fahrenheit today in Emerson, Manitoba. The municipality hit 100 last weekend — the earliest in the year Canada has ever recorded triple digits.
Republicans on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released their draft budget proposal on Sunday night, and my colleague Matthew Zeitlin dove into its widespread cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and other clean energy and environment programs. Among the rescissions — clawbacks of unspent money in existing programs — and other proposals, Matthew highlights:
Those are just a few of the cuts, which the Sierra Club estimates would add up to $1.6 billion for programs related to decarbonizing heavy industry alone. You can read Matthew’s whole analysis here.
Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce weren’t the only ones who’ve been busy. On Monday, the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy, proposed overhauling clean energy tax credits. Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo took a look at those proposals, including:
There’s much more, which Emily gets into here.
In response to President Trump’s executive order last week ordering the Energy Department to “eliminate restrictive water pressure and efficiency rules” for appliances, the DOE published a list of 47 regulations on Monday that it has targeted as “burdensome and costly.” Appliances regulated by the DOE’s list include cook tops, dishwashers, compressors, and microwave ovens, with the agency claiming the deregulation effort would cut 125,000 words from the Code of Federal Regulations and “save the American people an estimated $11 billion,”The New York Timesreports. By the government’s own accounting, though, efficiency standards saved the average American household about $576 on energy and gas bills in 2024, and reduced energy spending for households and businesses by $105 billion in total. “If this attack on consumers succeeds, President Trump would be raising costs dramatically for families as manufacturers dump energy- and water-wasting products into the market,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said in a statement. “Fortunately, it’s patently illegal, so hold your horses.”
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin said Monday that the Trump administration plans to target stop-start technology in cars. According to the EPA’s website, start-stop technology saves fuel “by turning off the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop and automatically starting it back up when you step on the accelerator,” improving fuel economy by 4% to 5%, especially in conditions like stop-and-go city driving. Zeldin, though, characterized the technology as when “your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy. EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.” Neither Zeldin nor the EPA offered further details on what that might entail.
More than 2,100 climate adaptation companies generated a combined $1 trillion in revenue last year by offering products and services mitigating the risks of climate change, a new study by London Stock Exchange Group found. “One question that we are getting a lot at the moment is: ‘With the Trump administration in office, what does that mean for the green economy?,’” Jaakko Kooroshy, LSEG’s global head of sustainable investment research, told Bloomberg in an interview about the report. The answer is “this thing is now so big and so robust, it’s not going to implode just like that,” he added.
The analysis looked at 20,000 companies worldwide and “found that adaptation-related revenues last year accounted for roughly a fifth of the $5 trillion global green economy,” with green buildings and water-related infrastructure being the most significant contributors, Bloomberg adds. LSEG further noted that if all companies related to the “green economy” were considered their own industry group, they’d have had the best performance of any equity sector over the past decade.
Thermasol
Wellness company Thermasol has introduced the first off-grid, solar-powered sauna in the U.S., which can reach 170 degrees Fahrenheit in about half an hour.
Rob and Jesse digest the Ways and Means budget bill live on air, alongside former Treasury advisor Luke Bassett.
The fight over the Inflation Reduction Act has arrived. After months of discussion, the Republican majority in the House is now beginning to write, review, and argue about its plans to transform the climate law’s energy tax provisions.
We wanted to record a show about how to follow that battle. But then — halfway through recording that episode — the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee dropped the first draft of its proposal to gut the IRA, and we had to review it on-air.
We were joined by Luke Bassett, a former senior advisor for domestic climate policy at the U.S. Treasury Department and a former senior staff member at the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We chatted about the major steps in the reconciliation process, what to watch next, and what to look for in the new GOP draft. 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, 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:
Jesse Jenkins: Let’s come back to this as a negotiation. This is the first salvo from the House. What does this tell you about where we go from here? Is this a floor? Could it get worse? Is it likely to get better as the lobbying kicks off in earnest by various industries threatened by these changes, and they try to peel things back? What do you think happens next?
Luke Bassett: If you run with the horror movie analogy here, this is scary. I think a lot of people, especially in any energy startups or folks who have been penciling out deals, to start really lining up new projects — or even folks looking for a new EV to buy are suddenly going to have to totally rethink what the next few years look like.
And, you know, whether or not they want to build a factory, buy a car, or have to switch from an electric heat pump to a whale oil burning stove. Who knows? That said, there are champions for each of these in very different ways in the Senate. There are lobbyists who —
Jenkins: — in the House, too.
Bassett: Exactly. There will be lobbyists weighing in. And I think it matters to really think through … I think we’ve been faced with gigantic uncertainty since January. And there’s a part where companies all across the energy sector are looking at this text as we speak and thinking, whoa, I didn’t sign up for this. And to combine this with tariffs, to combine it with the cuts to other federal programs in the other committees’ jurisdictions, it is just a nearly impossible outlook for building new projects. And I bet a bunch of people, CEOs and otherwise, are thinking, I wish Joe Manchin were back in the Senate. But you know, it is what it is.
Robinson Meyer: I will say that it could get worse from here because they will be negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus and with various other conservative House members. And they’ll also be negotiating against the president’s wishes, which is that this move and get done as soon as possible. And so when I talked to Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, who’s a supporter of the IRA, or wants to see it extended in large part, and I asked him questions like, what happens if Republicans really go to work in the House on the IRA and then it gets sent to the Senate? One dynamic we’ve already seen during this Congress is that te House Republican Caucus in this Congress is unusually functional and unusually strategic, and has been unusually good at passing relatively extreme and aggressive policy and then jamming the Senate with it.
And unlike what has happened in the past, which is the House Republican Caucus can’t really do anything, so the Senate passes a far more moderate policy, sends it to the House and dares the House to shut things down. This time the House, if folks remember back in March, the House passed a fairly aggressive budget and kicked it to the Senate and then dared the Senate to shut down the government, and ultimately the Senate decided to keep the government open.
I asked Curtis what happens if they do the same with the IRA. What happens if they really go to task on the IRA? They pass fairly aggressive cuts to it and they send it to the Senate. And his answer was, well, I don’t think the House is going to do that. I don’t think a bill that really savages the IRA could pass the House.
We’ll see, but I just don’t think there’s any floor here. I think there’s no floor for how bad this gets. And I think I just don’t, you know … Before we went into the administration, there was a lot of confidence that the Trump administration and the new Republican majority and the Congress was not going to do anything to substantially make the business environment worse. We’ve discovered there does seem to be a degree of tariffs that will make them squeal and pull back, but we actually haven’t found that in legislature yet.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.