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:
Though not, perhaps, the bad ideas you might expect.
Donald Trump will announce his running mate any day now, and according to multiple reports his choice has come down to Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. All erstwhile critics of Trump, they now share a fervent admiration for the former president they once scorned. But where do they stand on climate change?
Opinions on climate within the Republican Party are complex, and these three men reflect the divisions. According to Pew Research Center polls, 47% of Republicans over the age of 65 believe that human activity contributes a great deal or some to climate change, but a full 79% of Republicans under 30 think so. Yet only a tiny number of them feel any urgency around climate: In a Pew poll earlier this year, only 12% of Republicans said climate should be a top priority for the president and Congress, the lowest score of the 20 issues they asked about. (59% of Democrats said it should be a top priority.)
That leaves room for Republican politicians to take a variety of positions, as long as they agree that the ideas favored by climate hawks are bad. For many, the optimal position is a kind of malign neglect: They’ll admit that warming temperatures are bad, but somehow find their way to opposing all measures to address the problem. With one partial exception, that describes all of Trump’s likeliest running mates.
Burgum can be a little tough to pin down on climate, in large part because of how he shrewdly avoids talking about the issue in the culture-war terms so many in his party prefer. At the start of his second term he set a target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 — but without regulation or any reduction in fossil fuel production. Instead, Burgum wants the state to become a center for carbon capture, calling the room underground to store large amounts of carbon the state’s “geologic jackpot.”
As part of that project, Burgum has advocated the construction of a pipeline to carry CO2 into the state from other Midwest states, which he touts as simply a money-making proposition. “This has nothing to do with climate change,” he said in March. “This has to do with markets.” He has touted environmental, social, and governance-related investing, which focuses on companies with strong environmental records, as an opportunity for the state to lure capital — but has also joined with other Republican governors to condemn it.
Burgum has close ties with the oil industry, so much so that he has become Trump’s key liaison to the industry and its billionaire magnates; he has also been mentioned as a possible energy secretary if he is not Trump’s running mate, which would make him the administration’s chief fossil fuel advocate.
In other words, Burgum seems to be on multiple sides of the climate issue. He’s a fossil-fuel promoter and critic of electric vehicles who wants to make his state carbon neutral. And you will look in vain for any statement where Burgum says exactly what kind of threat he believes climate change poses, or even if he thinks it is happening at all; in technocratic style, he shifts any question on the issue to economic and practical concerns.
With its frequent hurricanes and dramatic sea level rise, Florida sees direct and repeated effects of climate change as much as any state in the country. Yet it took Marco Rubio many years to arrive at his current position: In the early part of his career he was a clear climate denier, but lately he has taken something more like the prevailing Republican view, which is that while climate change is happening and human activity may be contributing to it, we shouldn’t actually do much about it. At the very least, we shouldn’t do anything that comes with even the smallest cost in dollars or convenience.
During his first run for Senate in 2010, Rubio said, “The climate is always changing” — a common dodge among climate deniers, used to make them sound like they aren’t completely oblivious while they refuse to acknowledge the causes and consequences of post-industrialization warming. But “I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify” the idea that humans have anything to do with it, he added.
He continued to hold that position for years. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said in 2014. But over time, Rubio became less hesitant about admitting the reality of warming, even if he steered away from talking about the cause. He proposed modest measures to increase climate resilience, while always pairing them with attacks on more aggressive action as an attempt by leftist radicals to destroy the economy.
Today, Rubio is a member of the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus, which has occasional meetings but steers away from taking any positions on particular legislation or regulations, making it mostly a way for senators to say “I care” without committing themselves to action.
When Vance talks about climate, it’s in the terms of a culture warrior, heaping contempt on liberals and their goals for a safer and cleaner environment. His 2022 Senate campaign against Democrat Tim Ryan featured substantial discussion of climate issues, with Vance regularly condemning efforts to reduce emissions and lamenting the decline of coal. “All of this ‘bring American manufacturing back’ from the Democrats is fake unless we stop the green energy fantasy,” he tweeted that July. “Solar panels can’t power a modern manufacturing economy. That’s why the Chinese are building coal power plants, something Tim Ryan’s donors won’t let America do.”
“If you want to make our environment more clean, the way to do it is to invest in Ohio natural gas,” he’s said. Or as he told Fox News, “The obsession Democrats have with eliminating fossil fuels is crazy.”
Like Trump, Vance has emphasized his loathing for electric vehicles. “Even if there was a climate crisis, I don’t know how the way to solve it is to buy more Chinese manufactured electric vehicles,” he said on a radio show in 2022 in response to the EV incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act (which in fact requires that to qualify for subsidies vehicles must be mostly American-made with domestic materials; the requirements are complicated, but no Chinese vehicles qualify). “The whole EV thing is a scam, right?”
Always attuned to the value of a PR stunt, Vance introduced a bill he called the “Consequences for Climate Vandals Act,” meant to crack down on the scourge of climate activists throwing soup on paintings. Fox News was pleased, but the bill went nowhere, leaving America dangerously vulnerable to art-based climate protests.
This is the common thread running through Vance’s comments on climate: Unlike Rubio, who may have no choice but to discuss the effects of warming given the state he represents, Vance almost never mentions these effects. He turns any discussion of climate into an attack on liberals, environmentalists, and Democrats for their supposedly ruinous ideas to address the problem. If Burgum’s response to climate is Can we make money off this? and Rubio’s is It’s serious, but let’s not be hasty, Vance’s could be summed up as Go to hell, libs.
No matter who Trump picks, his vice president is unlikely to be anything but the most tentative voice of reason in the administration’s climate policy, even in the best of circumstances. None of these three has given us much reason to think he would risk his own position by standing in the way of what will no doubt be a determined effort to remove regulations on the fossil fuel industry, undo the carrot-based approach of the Biden administration to encouraging a green transition, and generally let the emissions rip. Or even that they’d want to.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Jesse gives Rob a lesson in marginal generation, inframarginal rent, and electricity supply curves.
Most electricity used in America today is sold on a wholesale power market. These markets are one of the most important institutions structuring the modern U.S. energy economy, but they’re also not very well understood, even in climate nerd circles. And after all: How would you even run a market for something that’s used at the second it’s created — and moves at the speed of light?
On this week’s episode of Shift Key Summer School, Rob and Jesse talk about how electricity finds a price and how modern power markets work. Why run a power market in the first place? Who makes the most money in power markets? How do you encourage new power plants to get built? And what do power markets mean for renewables?
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:
Jesse Jenkins: If I’m just a utility operating on my own, I want to basically run my fleet on what we call economic dispatch, which is rank ordering them from cheapest to most expensive on a fuel or variable cost basis, and trying to maximize my use of the less expensive generators and only turn on the more expensive generators when I need them.
That introduces this idea of a marginal generator, where the marginal generator is the last one I turned on that has some slack to move up or down as demand changes. And what that means is that if I have one more megawatt-hour of demand in that hour — or over a five-minute period, or whatever — or 1 megawatt-hour less, then I’m going to crank that one generator up or down. And so the marginal cost of that megawatt-hour of demand is the variable cost of that marginal generator. So if it’s a gas plant that can turn up or down, say it’s $40 a megawatt-hour to pay for its fuel, the cost on the margin of me turning on my lights and consuming a little bit more is that that one power plant is going to ramp its power up a little bit, or down if I turn something off.
And so the way we identify what the marginal value of supplying a little bit more electricity or consuming a little bit more electricity is the variable cost of that last generator, not the average cost of all the generators that are operating, because that’s the one that would change if I were to increase or decrease my output.
Does that make any sense?
Robinson Meyer: It does. In other words, the marginal cost for the whole system is a property of the power plant on the margin, which I realize is tautological. But basically, the marginal cost for increasing output for the entire system by 1 megawatt-hour is actually a property of the one plant that you would turn on to produce that megawatt-hour.
Jesse Jenkins: That’s right, exactly. And that can change over the course of the day. So if demand’s really high, that might be my gas plant that’s on the margin. But if demand is low, or in the middle of the day, that gas plant might be off, and the marginal generator during those periods might be the coal plant or even the nuclear plant at the bottom of the supply curve.
Mentioned:
Jesse’s slides on electricity pricing in the short run
Jesse’s lecture slides on electricity pricing in the long run
Shift Key Summer School episodes 1, 2, and 3
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.
Generate Capital’s Jonah Goldman makes his case.
The Inflation Reduction Act sparked a predictable surge in clean energy-related investments from the law’s signing in 2022 through the 2024 election, before President Trump’s second term ushered in an era of cancellations, closures, and downsizing. Of the domestic projects announced since the IRA’s passage, a total of 35 have been nixed or scaled back so far this year — more than in all of 2023 and 2024 combined, according to estimates from the environmental advocacy organization E2. This accounts for over $22 billion in lost investment and 16,500 in lost jobs.
“There’s a drastic decrease in the amount of new [clean energy] investments,” E2’s Michael Timberlake told me. After the IRA’s passage, he explained, nearly every month saw over a billion dollars invested in new clean energy projects. But since December of last year, monthly investment has come in below a billion dollars more often than not.
Domestic electric vehicle and battery manufacturing projects have been hit the hardest, as these sectors are staring down a federal bureaucracy clearly hostile to their tech on the one hand and Chinese competitors that are already leagues ahead of them on the other. But there is a bright spot: E2’s data shows that the grim outlook for clean energy projects is largely confined to the manufacturing sector. Many large-scale energy generation projects might actually, maybe, be mostly okay.
That’s what Jonah Goldman of the infrastructure investment firm Generate Capital is banking on. As electricity demand rises for the first time in over a decade, the need to deploy cost-competitive grid energy is only increasing. Thus, Goldman sees plenty of reason to continue investing in a renewables buildout — solar especially, which can often be deployed more quickly, flexibly, and economically than any other form of generation, politics aside.
“What is not a question really anymore is whether these projects are going to get built,” Goldman told me. “There’s just not another option. Even if you think of doubling our investment in gas generation, you still don’t get to this incredible increase in power demand that we need in order to reach the projections that we’re getting.”
Taking a closer look at the post-IRA projects that have been either canceled or scaled back shows that solar is indeed the most resilient investment of the bunch. Since the IRA’s passage, about 12% of announced solar projects have been canceled or downsized, compared to 25% of wind projects, 19% of EV projects, and 34% of EV battery projects. Only three of the 35 projects hit this year were related to solar, and only one of those was for solar generation.
Despite the overall dour domestic investment outlook, Timberlake thus agrees with Goldman that solar in particular isn’t grinding to a halt anytime soon. The market signal for clean energy, Timberlake said, is “indisputable.” The buildout might happen more slowly than it otherwise would have, as the administration continues to unspool regulatory red tape for these projects, but it’ll happen.
And, of course, it will get more expensive. Because while Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill maintains investment and production tax credits for most clean energy technologies through 2033, it cuts credits for solar and wind projects that either start construction after July 2026, or, if they haven’t started by then, are placed in service after 2027.
While Goldman hates what that will do to electricity prices, he doesn’t seem too worried about it hurting Generate’s ability to invest. For the moment, he told me, this timeline leaves the firm with a strong pipeline of opportunities not only in solar, but also in other categories like battery energy storage, geothermal, and sustainable fuels that have largely retained their IRA incentives. “You’re still talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of available investments that don’t wear that risk at all,” he said.
In fact, there are also already so many renewables projects under construction or set to begin soon that “we’ve got more investable opportunities than we have capital to invest,” Goldman explained. Rather than a lull, the tax credit cutoff date is now creating an incentive for investors to throw their support behind projects that appear poised to meet the deadlines.
That won’t last forever. After the credits phase out, investment could certainly dip, Goldman said, “until either those incentives are restored — which they still could be — or the market figures out how to effectively price those projects without that incentive.” Because tax-credit eligible projects that began construction prior to July 2026 will still be coming online for the next few years, Goldman predicts the lull could start around 2029.
He’s not convinced the incentives are gone for good, though. Solar and wind tax credits have suffered through many periods of uncertainty during their decades-long history, always ultimately enduring. And while the industry shouldn’t bank on a mid-term congressional shakeup laying the groundwork for a credit extension, it’s always a possibility — especially given looming electricity price hikes. That could rile up voters enough to begin chipping away at the partisan divides that have formed around clean energy, fossil fuels, and how the heck to power all of these AI data centers.
“We’re no longer talking about a political issue, despite the fact that they made this a political issue.” Goldman told me. “What we need is more electrons on the grid for as affordable a price as possible. And some of those will be generated from gas, and some of those will be generated from renewables.”
The U.S. is also not the only place for infrastructure investors to make money. While domestic clean energy investment may be down, the first half of 2025 saw global private infrastructure funding increase significantly compared with the prior two years. Data center and renewables-focused funds drove the trend, making up 45% and 36% of total investment raised, respectively. The “power and transmission” sector — which includes fossil fuel-fired generation — comprised a mere 12%.
But given that climate funds from all corners of the globe do primarily invest in the U.S., this certainly points to a sustained interest in building domestic clean energy infrastructure. Or, as Goldman put it, “the fundamentals of the market are complicated but only pointing in one direction — a deep thirst for quick, buildable power. And there’s only certain technologies that can fill that deep thirst.”
On Interior’s birdwatching, China’s lithium slowdown, and recycling aluminum
Current conditions: Hurricane Erin is gathering strength as it makes its way toward Puerto Rico later this week • Flash flooding and severe storms threaten the Great Plains and Midwest • In France, 12 administrative regions are on red alert for heat as temperatures surge past 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Ford announced plans on Monday to deliver a $30,000 mid-size all-electric truck in 2027, in a potential shakeup of an EV market that’s been plagued by high costs. But the truck — which is rumored to revive the retro name Ford Ranchero — wasn’t really the main news. The pickup is part of Ford’s plan to “reimagine the entire way it builds EVs to cut costs, turn around its struggling EV division, and truly compete with the likes of Tesla,” Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman wrote, which the company has dubbed its second “Model T moment.”
The strategy embraces a more minimalist, software-driven method of car design that EV-only companies such as Tesla and Rivian employ, allowing them to make mechanically simpler vehicles with fewer buttons and parts and more functions run by software through touchscreens. The push could “change everything” and “disrupt the U.S. auto industry,” wrote Inside EVs.
The Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service is sending letters to wind developers across the U.S. asking for volumes of records about eagle deaths, indicating an imminent crackdown on wind farms under the auspices of bird protection laws, Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reported. The letters demand developers submit a laundry list of documents to the Service within 30 days, including “information collected on each dead or injured eagle discovered.”
The Trump administration has ramped up its assault on the wind industry in recent weeks, de-designating millions of acres of ocean for offshore wind development and yanking federal approvals for the Lava Ridge wind project in Idaho. Here’s Jael with more on the escalation.
An explosion at a U.S. Steel plant outside Pittsburgh killed at least two workers and injured nearly a dozen more. The first worker confirmed to have died was Timothy Quinn, 39, a father of three and caretaker to his mother, his sister, Trisha Quinn told CNN. She said officials did not alert her to her brother’s death until 4 p.m., hours after the explosion occurred. “My dad worked at the steel mill for 42 years,” she said. “He would be disgusted at the situation right now.” U.S. Steel executives said they do not yet know what caused the blast. The name of the second worker to have died was not yet confirmed.
The Clairton Coke Works facility, which has operated for more than 120 years, is a key node in the American steel supply chain, providing iron for the blast furnaces in Braddock, Pennsylvania, and Gary, Indiana. It was slated for potential investments under Nippon Steel’s $15 billion acquisition of the American giant. The extent of the damage is unclear, but the reconstruction of the plant could pose a test of whether Nippon will invest in newer, cleaner technologies or rebuild the existing coal-fired equipment.
Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, said Monday it would halt production at a major lithium mine, sparking a surge in lithium futures and miners’ share prices, Reuters reported. The move is seen as part of Beijing’s broader attempt to rein in China’s overcapacity in the battery market, which created a global glut. Stock in lithium companies outside China surged on the news, as did spot prices. The license on the mine, located in the southeast province of Jiangxi, expired on August 9. The site previously supplied up to 6% of the world’s lithium.
“I am bullish on the move. It is proof positive that Chinese producers can only operate at a loss for so long before shutting in production. When they do, the floor under prices starts to take shape,” Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, the Department of Energy’s former deputy director for batteries and critical minerals, wrote on LinkedIn. “This move will not fix the sector’s structural challenges overnight, but it is a meaningful signal that the worst of the oversupply pressure may be behind us.”
President Donald Trump’s 50% tariffs on imported aluminum could spur a recycling boom, industry experts told The Wall Street Journal’s Ryan Dezember. Primary aluminum production dwindled over the last 25 years. Two of the first new smelters planned in the U.S. in decades are facing increased competition for electricity from data centers. Production is likely still a few years away. By contrast, aluminum-recycling plants can be built faster and cheaper — roughly two years and $150 million — and consume 5% of the energy needed for primary production since they rely on chemical reactions to break down wasted metal. “Recycling is the answer,” said Duncan Pitchford, the executive in charge of recycling giant Norsk Hydro’s upstream business in the U.S. “The metal is already here.”
Scientists at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Princeton University re-engineered the metabolism of the yeast Issatchenkia orientalis to supercharge its fermentation of plant glucose into succinic acid, an important industrial chemical used in food additives and agricultural and pharmaceutical products. The natural fermentation process, relying on yeasts and renewable plant material, is far less carbon intensive than the conventional production using petrochemicals. “These advances bring us closer to greener manufacturing processes that benefit both the environment and the economy,” Vinh Tran, study’s primary author, said in a press release.