Energy
The New Campaign to Save Renewables: Lower Electricity Bills
Defenders of the Inflation Reduction Act have hit on what they hope will be a persuasive argument for why it should stay.
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:
Defenders of the Inflation Reduction Act have hit on what they hope will be a persuasive argument for why it should stay.
Answering your questions on AI and energy, the economics of solar, the Green New Deal’s legacy, and more.
“If you’re a Republican with energy expertise, yeah, your stock is fairly high right now.”
The market picture is at least slightly more mixed than you might think.
On Fed deliberations, Senate negotiations, and investment stagnations
On flaring, forests, and boardroom deliberations.
Current conditions: At least 45 are dead and many more are trapped in the Indian state of Kerala after heavy rainfall triggered landslides • California’s Park Fire, only 14% contained, is now the sixth-largest in the state’s history • Typhoon Gaemi’s death toll continues to climb as the storm’s remnants batter southern China • A flash flood hit the popular Dollywood theme park in Tennessee.
European companies are considering whether to invest in new clean energy projects in the U.S. as November’s election looms, Reuters reported on Monday. The Inflation Reduction Act’s incentives for clean energy, EVs, and hydrogen – which drew many European firms to cross the Atlantic – are perceived to be in jeopardy in the event of a Trump victory. Companies like Thyssenkrupp Nucera, Nel, SMA Solar, and H2Apex, which have undertaken clean energy projects in the U.S. in the last two years, are all delaying investment decisions over worries that tax credits and demand could dry up.
Their concerns are warranted. Donald Trump has pledged to redirect clean energy funding to other priorities like roads and bridges should he win re-election. And the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 (widely seen as a policy map for a second Trump term) proposes gutting key climate agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy’s Loans Program Office.
Type One Energy closed its seed funding round at $82.5 million, a testament to the hype surrounding the emerging nuclear fusion company. As Heatmap’s Katie Brigham reports, the company uses a reactor design known as a stellarator, which – unlike the traditional tokamak reactor – employs a twisted magnetic field to keep the plasma stabilized inside. The company’s novel technology sparked interest from major funders like Breakthrough Energy, Centaurus Capital, and New Zealand-based GD1. Type One CEO Chris Mowry called the funding round, “one of the largest, if not the largest ever, seed financings in the history of energy.”
The host of the UN COP29 climate summit flared 10.5% more methane in 2023 than it did in 2018, the last time the country reported its emissions, according to recent analysis by nonprofit group Global Witness. Flaring involves burning (rather than capturing) the natural gas produced as a byproduct of oil drilling, and it is responsible for over 381 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions annually, according to the World Bank. Several of the facilities most at fault for the increase in flaring are owned or operated by British multinational energy company BP.
It’s a new black mark on Azerbaijan’s climate record, already under scrutiny by those who object to holding another climate conference in a major oil and gas-producing country.
A forthcoming report by economic analysis group IMPLAN finds that wildfires could punch a nearly $90 billion hole in U.S. economic output this year. Wildfires are already displacing entire communities as they rage across much of the American West. That’s going to have an impact, says IMPLAN — potentially eliminating as many as 466,000 jobs by the end of the year. The report notes that some industries may actually benefit from the surge in wildfires. Businesses like electricity, healthcare, and (of course) fire prevention could see elevated spending as climate change increases the frequency of these destructive blazes.
Vegetation isn’t acting as the carbon sponge many had hoped it would. A new study by the French research organization Laboratory for Climate and Environmental Sciences (LCES) found that between 2022 and 2023, the growth rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased 86%. That’s partly because drought in the Amazon and wildfires in Canada constrained forests’ ability to sequester carbon as they normally do. While the report’s authors noted that carbon uptake changes from year to year, these findings cast doubt on forests’ reliability as a carbon sponge in the future. “We are pumping less carbon from the atmosphere into the land,” one of the study’s authors told Reuters. “Suddenly the pump is choking, and it's pumping less.”
“Unfortunately, meteorological events beyond our control ... can alter water quality and compel us to reschedule the event for health reasons.” – A joint statement by World Triathlon and Paris 2024 blaming the weekend’s rain storms for the pollution in the Seine that caused them to postpone today’s men’s Olympic triathlon.
“Republicans engage differently on climate and energy policy than Democrats, and that doesn’t make it wrong.”
The longest presidential nomination acceptance speech in history included not one single second on climate change. That’s table stakes, though, for the party of Donald Trump. More noteworthy, perhaps: During Trump’s 92-minute speech Thursday night at the conclusion of the Republican National Convention, he used the word “energy” fewer times than he said “beautiful,” “invasion,” or his own name.
When Trump did reference energy, it was almost exclusively to distinguish himself from the incumbent’s policies. “They’ve spent trillions of dollars on things having to do with the Green New Scam,” he said in an apparent reference to the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant action the U.S. government has ever taken on clean energy. He vowed to redirect IRA funds to “roads, bridges, and dams,” and to both “drill, baby, drill” and end the (nonexistent) “electric vehicle mandate” on his first day in office. Such adversarial rhetoric was par for the course for the RNC’s primetime speakers — would-be future cabinet member Doug Burgum earlier this week warned of an “era” of “brownouts and blackouts” if Democrats stay in power, and Trump’s running mate JD Vance painted himself as an ally of “the energy worker” in fracking states.
But the energy (if you will) offstage was cheerier. The clean energy advocates I spoke with left Milwaukee feeling optimistic, and told me that RNC attendees were generally receptive to an “all of the above” energy approach — a term that refers to the build-out of emissions-lowering renewable energy in combination with the continued domestic production of fossil fuels.
Arguably, “all of the above” is what President Biden is already doing, which might be why it didn’t make primetime; political conventions are hype events, meant to build enthusiasm for a candidate, promote the party platform, and, above all, distinguish what makes them different from the other guys. Republican rank-and-file voters and state delegates are “not going to be receptive to a ‘climate change’ message,” Heather Reams, the president of the center-right clean energy advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, told me — or at least not in those words.
“I know there are a lot of my friends on the left who are very nervous looking at this convention,” Reams said. But “Republicans engage differently on climate and energy policy than Democrats, and that doesn’t make it wrong.”
And engage they did. Energy was reportedly a topic of robust conversation during the un-televised portions of the convention, especially regarding affordability, domestic supply chains, and a strong economy. “Every day there was a central energy event with policymakers, members of Congress, governors, state legislators, and energy sector leaders talking about the opportunities to grow American clean energy across the country,” Jeremy Harrell, the CEO of ClearPath, a conservative clean energy advocacy group, told me. “It was really incredible to see hundreds of people getting together across town in different forums to talk about the opportunities in this space.”
ClearPath and CRES, along with the American Conservation Coalition and the Conservative Climate Foundation, hosted a joint event promoting Republican-led climate change policies that more than 250 people attended, according to Harrell. Speakers included Utah congressman and Republican senatorial candidate John Curtis and Iowa congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, both members of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Reince Priebus, the former RNC chairman and one-time White House chief of staff under Trump, also delivered remarks “really doubling down” on clean energy as a whole, Harrell said, including raising questions like, “How do we invest in American energy innovation? How do we grow energy and manufacturing jobs? How do we reduce our dependence on Russian and Chinese energy and resources, and do it all while reducing global emissions?”
Reports of Republican receptiveness to an “all of the above” energy approach won’t satisfy everyone, of course. Some climate advocates have criticized the strategy as not going far enough since it doesn’t eliminate new carbon pollution. For example, as Lori Lodes — the executive director of Climate Power, a pro-Democratic strategic communications organization that has slammed Biden for approving new drilling projects — stressed in a RNC press conference this week, Republicans’ return to power “would see Big Oil CEOs get richer as working families face job losses, higher costs, fewer choices, and poisoned communities.” And as my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, “if your biggest issue is that the United States should aim to rapidly reduce its emissions of heat-trapping pollution, then you probably shouldn’t vote” for the Republican presidential ticket.
Additionally, lurking behind the RNC platform and headliner speeches looms the specter of Project 2025, which, among other things, endorses axing the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office and its $400 billion lending authority to help clean energy technologies that are potentially too risky for traditional lenders. Trump has (unconvincingly, to some) aimed to distance himself from the document, and Reams told me, “Just because some of Trump’s advisors created it doesn’t mean that it’s going to be accepted.”
Still, while Reams was pleased with the receptivity to clean energy she found on the ground at the RNC, she wasn’t entirely without apprehensions. “Where it can be a little bit harder for us is thinking about government spending — the tax credits and protecting those tax credits, appropriations for the Department of Energy and offices like the [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy], or clean grid initiatives — that I think are going to be a little bit of a tougher sell to Republicans. We have our work cut out for us there,” she told me. “But there are so many other House Republicans who totally get it today.”
The RNC headliners did hit some of the right notes for the all-of-the-abovers; Harrell, of ClearPath, was particularly excited about Vance’s speech emphasizing investment in the U.S. supply chain to reduce reliance on foreign adversaries. This, he told me, would lead to “investment in clean clean energy and clean assets across the country.”
By design, political conventions are a kind of Rorschach test, so that the conversation (or lack thereof) that so alarmed the climate left this week might be, in the eyes of others, an encouraging sign of ideological progress. In 2016, the last in-person Republican convention, clean energy “was tough to talk about,” Reams told me. Of this past week, she said, “I can say nothing but positive things.”