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
.
Informative, engaging analysis and insights about climate issues
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.
Informative, engaging analysis and insights about climate issues
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.
When Donald Trump met with a group of oil executives at Mar-a-Lago last month, his message was somewhere between “refreshingly blunt” and “blatant shakedown.” Attendees
spilled to The Washington Post that Trump told the executives they should raise a billion dollars for his campaign so he could make them even richer by reducing their taxes and removing regulations on their industry.
One can’t help but wonder if any of them thought to themselves that as appealing as that kind of deal might be, there’s no reason for them to be desperate. After all, the Biden years have actually been quite good for the fossil fuel industry.
That applies to the fossil fuel industry’s political allies as well: While Republicans are appalled at the enormous sums the administration and congressional Democrats have directed to renewable energy development and other climate-focused programs, fossil fuels are doing just fine. In the immediate term, the president’s political opponents can barely find anything to complain about, which was probably key to the Biden administration’s political strategy all along.
Republican frustration was on clear display at a
hearing Thursday of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, where GOP members went through the motions of grilling Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm over what they like to call “the Biden administration’s war on energy.” Their attempts to portray the administration’s throttling the production of fossil fuels were so absurd that at times Granholm seemed to struggle to keep from laughing out loud. One member was upset about the demise of incandescent light bulbs. Another said they “know a guy” who, for some reason, had to pay $8,000 to put an electric vehicle charger in his garage (the secretary was at a loss to explain that). And a third wanted to know whether the DOE is reverse-engineering technology from unidentified aerial phenomena, what we used to refer to call UFOs (the secretary didn’t give much of an answer — clearly she’s in on the conspiracy).
“Can you clarify whether the Department of Energy has been involved in any such efforts either historically or currently to analyze reverse-engineering materials from or related to UAPs?” asked Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida.
“I have no knowledge of that,” Granholm replied.
“There have been documented sightings of metallic spheres over DOE facilities,” Luna continued later. “What investigations have been conducted in regards to these sightings and what conclusions do you guys have about the nature and origins of these objects?”
“I’d be happy to follow up with you on that,” Granholm replied diplomatically.
Predictable congressional buffoonery notwithstanding, this is the curious situation in which we find ourselves: On one hand, this administration has done more to advance green energy than any that came before. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act was the most significant piece of climate legislation in history, and if the administration’s climate initiatives are successful, this could be the key turning point in America’s contribution to climate change. On the other hand, the U.S. has never exported more oil than it
did last year and overtook Australia and Qatar to become the world’s leading producer of liquified natural gas. The fossil fuel industry has been booming since Joe Biden took office, and still is.
The immediate topic of the Oversight Committee hearing was the administration’s decision to pause new approvals for liquid natural gas export projects so it can complete a review of the analysis that underpins those approvals. The pause doesn’t affect existing exports or projects under construction, but it has been hailed by many climate activists as an important step in the right direction.
The administration has
framed the pause in the context of its climate efforts, and the environmental impact of LNG is complicated; while burning gas creates lower emissions than burning coal or oil, the processes involved in exporting LNG — lowering the temperature of the gas until it becomes a liquid, moving it onto boats, moving the boats across the ocean, turning the liquid back into a gas — create their own emissions that make LNG not a particularly climate-friendly option.
In addition, there’s the question of environmental justice. “It is deeply disturbing to me that fossil fuel production is at a record high under the current administration,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib at the hearing, noting the high rates of asthma and cancer in the area she grew up in and represents in Detroit. “LNG exports perpetuate, I think, systematic environmental racism,” she said, noting that the processing facilities are often sited in areas that are mostly minority and poor.
Nevertheless, the temporary pause on new approvals won’t hinder the booming LNG industry much, especially in the short run. As Granholm said, “We have exploded in our authorizations. This pause only applies to new ones coming down the pike.” The U.S. exported 88.9 million metric tons of LNG
in 2023; just eight years ago exports were almost nothing.
And yet keep repeating “War on energy!” knowing that facts seldom play too much of a role in political persuasion.
Polling shows that more voters trust Donald Trump on a range of questions related to energy production and prices, and the imaginary lack of fossil fuel production is such an urgent problem to solve that Trump has promised that he will be a dictator on “day one” in order to do two things: “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
It can appear to be the best of both worlds for Republicans: They get the fossil fuel production they want, and outside of a hearing room where they can be directly shot down, they can still make at least some political hay out of energy. They would probably add that while oil and gas production is up at the moment, Democrats are still hoping to phase out fossil fuels over the long run. Which is true.
Democrats have the harder political task: They want to show that they’re addressing climate change, but in a way that doesn’t cause any inconvenience or higher retail prices for gasoline. That has always been part of the green energy dream — that we could get more energy for less money, even as we’re saving the planet. In some ways that’s what’s happening as the price of renewables has continued to drop. But all it takes is a momentary spike in gasoline prices to send angry voters back into the arms of whoever promises to bring them down.
Paul Waldman is an MSNBC columnist, co-host of the Boundary Issues podcast, and author of The Cross Section, a newsletter about politics. His latest book is White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy.
You’re out of free articles
Subscribe today to get unlimited digital access to Heatmap’s in-depth reporting and analysis.
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.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
There will be many chances this week to dissect why two-term New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman lost his primary to Westchester County Executive George Latimer, which The Associated Press called less than an hour after the polls closed on Tuesday. Post mortems will focus on the financial angle (the 16th District primary was the most expensive in House history) and, of course, the Israel-Palestine angle (nearly $15 million alone came from an American Israel Public Affairs Committee-affiliated super PAC that aggressively portrayed Bowman as antisemitic). Others will say it had been a forgone conclusion and point to the disturbing way Latimer co-opted Republican racial dog-whistles in his attacks, or claim Bowman sabotaged his own chances by shifting too far to the left.
It’s probably still a stretch to say that Bowman’sresounding loss was a referendum on progressive climate movements like Sunrise, which attached itself both to Bowman and to the Green New Deal. But look at it the other way around: In the context of Governor Kathy Hochul’s reneging on congestion pricing and the state legislature’s failure to pass the NY HEAT Act, one of the staunchest allies of progressive climate policy losing his election represents another blow to New York’s image as a national leader on the issue — and its ability to remain one.
The Sunrise Movement played a pivotal role in Bowman’s 2020 win against 30-year incumbent Eliot Engel — who was, himself, an original co-sponsor of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal bill. But Bowman, then 44, represented a fresh face for environmentally minded progressives in a district that once voted more overwhelmingly for Barack Obama than any other locality in the county. When Bowman ultimately defeated the then-73-year-old establishment figure, he also became the first Black representative of the majority minority district that covers the southern half of Westchester County and the northern lip of the Bronx.
In Congress, Bowman’s senior policy advisor reportedly helped spur Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer into action on the Inflation Reduction Act during the summer of 2022. Somewhat less gloriously, Bowman became only the 27th member of Congress to be censured after he pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol during spending bill negotiations. (He claimed he thought it opened a door.) But his legacy also includes the pursuit of progressive climate policies, such as the Sunrise-backed Green New Deal for Public Schools Act, which he’s introduced in each of the past two congressional sessions and, if passed, would invest $1.6 trillion to reduce emissions and lower environmental justice-related barriers at public schools. Still, that sort of aggressive public spending hasn’t always sat right with the powers that be in the Democratic Party; tellingly, Hillary Clinton endorsed Bowman’s challenger, Latimer, even as pro-Trumpers poured money into his campaign.
Fast-forward to 2024, and the Sunrise Movement is going through a reckoning of its own over whether President Biden’s climate record outweighs his handling of the crisis in Gaza. (Ironically, Bowman “probably had the worst politics on the issue of any Squad member early on in his tenure,” the progressive Discourse Bloghas argued.)
That’s not to say that the climate is “losing” to Middle East policy in Americans’ hearts and minds, exactly; on the contrary, climate is a proven election winner, albeit not always in those words. But elections are about, and influenced by, many things, and whatever the combination of reasons may be, the truth stands that with Bowman’s defeat, Congress is now down one more progressive climate ally than it otherwise would have been. (Latimer has called climate change an “existential threat” but has not foregrounded it as a primary concern.)
Bowman’s loss might not sound like much in the bigger picture of the many climate elections happening this year — including, of course, the Big One. But if former President Donald Trump manages to take back the White House this November, every House and Senate seat sympathetic to the urgent realities of climate change will matter critically. That’s not to say, necessarily, that Latimer won’t fight for such causes, but it seems unlikely he’ll be a leader the way Bowman and other Squad members have been, at times pushing more centrist Democrats further to the left and to action.
So yes, you can draw many conclusions from the 16th District primary — that it represents the collapse of the progressive influence of groups like Sunrise; or that, with Bowman being the first Squad member to lose reelection, it reveals a growing impatience with absolutist politics; or that big-money interests have finally figured out a winning strategy in outspending scrappy underdogs; or how all these things in combination might spell trouble for Biden in a few months. But a loss is a loss, and it’s the nature of post mortems to leave out the most important question: What happens next?
The freedom of the open road is embedded in our consciousness in a way it is in few (if any) other countries. A typical American consumer may want to be able to embark on a summer road-trip across the United States’ vast distances, to cram in a family of five and all their camping supplies (and maybe a dog and a canoe!), or to hitch up a trailer to haul a boat or RV wherever they might want to adventure.
We may not use all those features most of the time, but we don’t want to make a major purchase like a car, truck, or SUV to meet the average use case; if we can afford to, we buy for the edgecase.
That’s why I can’t stop thinking about a recent announcement made by Stellantis, the Euro-American conglomerate behind brands like Dodge, Jeep, Ram and Alfa Romeo.
For model year 2025, Stellantis will electrify its full-size Ram 1500 pickup, following in the footsteps of GM and Ford. But unlike its rivals, Stellantis will offer the Ram 1500 REV in both an all-electric model (with 350-500 mile range) anda "range extender" Ramcharger 1500 that features around 140 miles of electric range — plus a V6 engine mated to a generator to power the vehicle when the battery is depleted.
I think it’s brilliant.
This kind of range-extended EV seems like the ideal near-term product to satisfy some of the trickiest American market segments to electrify: namely the uniquely American demand for full-size pickups and massive SUVs.
I’ve been a critic of plug-in hybrid vehicles as a bridge to an electrified future in the past. But I’ve leveled that critique against the popular “parallel” plug-in hybrid architecture, which features both a conventional internal combustion engine and mechanical transmission plus a battery and electric motor/generator.
Despite Toyota’s reputation for hybrids, Stellantis is actually the undisputed king of plug-in hybrids in the U.S. already, with plug-in hybrid versions of popular models like the Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee and the Chrysler Pacifica minivan selling at a record pace in recent months.
While this common plug-in hybrid architecture could be right for many Americans reluctant to fully electrify (especially those without access to dedicated Level 2 charging), they suffer from one big drawback: they carry around the full drive train — and all the baggage and cost — of both a conventional gas-burning vehicle and a full battery EV. Duplicate drivetrains means they’ll never be cheaper than a pure internal-combustion or electric car. And with limited space on board to cram in a big battery, these vehicles sport a modest 20-40 mile all-electric range.
(Listen to this recent episode of Shift Keyfor more on my problems with plug-ins and a discussion of recent U.S. electrified vehicle trends)
In contrast, a “range-extended EV” or “series” plug-in hybrid (or whatever we start calling this other third thing) like the new Ramcharger is a fully electric-drive vehicle. There’s no mechanical transmission to power the wheels. It simply has a compact gasoline engine, tuned to run at a single, most-efficient speed, married to a generator that can produce electricity to run the electric motors when the battery is depleted.
Thanks to the extended range provided by the gasoline generator, these vehicles can drop battery mass and cost, squeeze in a gasoline engine and fuel tank, and still come out comparable on cost as a pure EV with substantially longer range than parallel plug-in hybrids.
The Ram 1500 EV needs a massive 229 kilowatt-hour (kWh) pack to deliver an as-advertised 500 mile range. (The 168-kWh battery for the 350-mile-range version is also huge, 85% larger than the pack in my extended range Mustang Mach-E which gets about 300 miles range.)
In contrast, the Ramcharger has a 92 kWh pack and offers about 145 miles of all-electric range.
The range-extended series hybrid thus sheds 137 kWh of batteries vs. the 500 mile range EV. At about $100+ per kWh to manufacture and assemble those incremental battery cells, that saves Stellantis at least $14,000 to manufacture the truck. A new V6 engine costs about $5,000-10,000 retail and surely much less for an automaker to manufacture, so swapping batteries for the V6 nets a significant cost savings.
The economics and capabilities of a range-extended EV thus make a lot of sense, especially for massive vehicles like the full-size trucks and SUVs so many Americans love. And they squash any concerns about range anxiety that might give buyers pause — especially those interested in towing something, which decimates the range of the all-electric pickups on the market today.
At the same time, more range-extended EVs on the road would reduce demand for D.C. fast chargers — which are especially scarce in the more rural areas of America where the full-size pickup is king. You can still charge these vehicles at a D.C. fast charger (if you can find one), but you can also pull into any gas station to extend range on road trips.
Meanwhile, a 100+ mile electric range is sufficient to cover around 99% of trips taken in personal vehicle in America. Plus, even when running in generator mode, a series electric drive train with regenerative braking is more efficient than a pure internal combustion drive (especially when the internal combustion generator can bypass the battery to directly power the electric motors, as it can in the Ramcharger). Near-term adoption of range-extended EVs could deliver substantial reductions in both emissions and gas use.
Sound familiar? That’s because this was exactly how the original Chevy Volt and BMW i3 range extended option were configured way back in 2011. Why GM didn’t continue down this path to electrify their massive Silverados, Sierras, and Escalades is beyond me.
Stellantis isn’t the only automaker going down this path. Mazda has struggled to get a competitive EV out, with their MX-30 offering a paltry 100-mile range. So they’re launching a range-extended version with a compact 830cc rotary engine (one of Mazda’s core IPs), which could turn the compact SUV into a truly viable product. Across the Atlantic, Nissan also offers a series hybrid drivetrain marketed as e-POWER in Europe and the U.K.
Building range-extended battery EVs is also a good way for manufacturers to develop experience with all-electric vehicle architecture and achieve economies of scale in production. A series hybrid can ride on the same all-electric platform as a full battery electric variant — as in the case of the Ram 1500 REV and Ramcharger — which is key to keeping manufacturing costs low. (Several Chinese automakers took this route.) In contrast, a parallel plug-in hybrid always shares a platform with its pure fossil fueled siblings.
Finally, the U.S. is embarking on a strategic effort to onshore and “friend shore” the whole EV battery and critical minerals supply chain. It’s going to be a serious challenge. Cutting the size of battery packs in electric full-size pickup and SUVs in half makes that a lot easier.
So are range-extended EVs with 100 mile range the electrified vehicle Americans are waiting for? If they're demanding big vehicles, towing capacity, and long-distance travel away from cities and interstates — e.g. exactly the segments hardest to satisfy with a pure EV — the answer might be yes.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article used “personal vehicle miles traveled” instead of trips taken in personal vehicles. It’s been updated.
Current conditions: Deadly flooding in parts of the Midwest is forecast to worsen Tuesday before rivers crest midweek • Northern China remains in drought as the southern province of Guangdong suffers flooding, landslides, and mudslides • Western India braces for heavy rains.
THE TOP FIVE
1. SCOTUS takes on NEPA
The U.S. Supreme Court is due to close out its latest session this week (although decisions could stretch into July), and court- and climate-watchers are expecting it to issue a death blow to a legal precedent called the Chevron deference, which gave federal agencies wide latitude to interpret their mandates where the law was vague. More than 19,000 federal court decisions rest on Chevron as a binding precedent, according to the Center for American Progress, and ending it would add to the already hefty legal burden of defending climate regulations.
But wait, there’s more! On Monday, the court agreed to take up a case that could determine whether federal agencies can consider a project’s indirect emissions when evaluating its environmental impacts. The case concerns a proposed railway that would transport oil in northeast Utah, which had its approval from the Surface Transportation Board thrown out by a federal appeals court last year. The appeals court ruled that the agency’s environmental review failed to assess how the railway would affect future oil development, along with several other environmental considerations. A group of Utah counties say those impacts are beyond the agency’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act.
A decision by the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear arguments in the fall, has the potential to apply not only to railways but also to many other projects regulated by the federal government, including pipelines and shipping ports.
2. Midwest floods leave path of destruction
A railroad bridge connecting Sioux City, Iowa, and North Sioux City, South Dakota, collapsed late Sunday amid flooding in the Midwest that also put a Minnesota dam in “imminent failure condition,” officials said.
The bridge, owned by BNSF Railway, spanned the Big Sioux River, where the water was about 45 feet high as of Monday morning — surpassing the previous record by more than 7 feet.
Minnesota’s Rapidan Dam on the Blue Earth River suffered a “partial failure” on Monday after water breached the west side of the dam and washed away an Xcel Energy substation. The Blue Earth County Sheriff's Office said on Facebook that it doesn’t know whether the dam will hold but that “there are no current plans for a mass evacuation.”
3. A California utility bets big on enhanced geothermal
The enhanced geothermal startup Fervo, which uses techniques borrowed from fracking oil and gas to access heat below the earth's surface to generate electricity, said today that it had signed the “world’s largest” geothermal power purchase agreements. The two deals with Southern California Edison, a California utility, add up to 320 megawatts from the company's Utah site. California utilities are mandated by the state energy regulator to buy 1,000 megawatts of non-weather-dependent power with no greenhouse gas emissions, for which geothermal fits the bill. The power will start flowing, Fervo said, by 2026 and will be fully up and running by 2028.
4. Study: Extreme wildfires are multiplying
Extreme wildfires have doubled in intensity and frequency over the past two decades due to climate change, according to a new study. The research, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, used satellite data to measure the occurrence of particularly powerful wildfires between 2003 and 2023. It found that such extreme events increased 2.2-fold during that period, with six of the past seven years ranking among the worst.
The changes aren’t uniform across biomes: Temperate conifer forests and boreal forests, both of which are prevalent in North America, are among the hardest hit. A report released last fall by Democrats on the Senate’s Joint Economic Committee showed the staggering cost of the fires to the United States. Accounting for damage to timber stocks and watersheds, smoke damage, lost income, and diminished real estate value on top of the property and insurance costs, the report found that fires cost the U.S. as much as $893 billion per year.
Coal plants are becoming less dependable as they age, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation said in its 2024 State of Reliability report. Coal plants’ weighted equivalent forced outage rate — defined as as “the probability that a group of units will not meet their generating requirements because of forced outages or forced derates,” with more weight given to larger generating units — was about 12% in 2023, compared with an average of 10% between 2014 and 2022, Jack Norris, a performance analysis engineer with NERC, told reporters. Norris said most other generation sources “have remained within a percentile over the same period,” while coal’s outage rates have been on the rise, Utility Dive reported. Rising maintenance needs and pressure to accommodate variable energy sources are also “having a negative impact on these units’ reliability,” Norris said.