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:
New research reveals the U.S. has a plausible but narrow path to accomplishing its international climate commitments.
Here’s the good news: The United States is closer than it’s ever been to reaching its ambitious Paris Agreement goals. For the first time since President Joe Biden set a new and aggressive carbon-reduction target in 2021 — and for the first time, arguably, since the climate accord was signed in 2016 — America has a plausible path to accomplishing its international climate commitments.
Here’s the bad: The country still needs a few more big policies to get over the line. Cities, states, companies, and the federal government must slash carbon pollution in ways that go beyond what the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, will achieve. Even then, emissions must plunge more than twice as fast over the next seven years as they did over the past 17.
Those are the headline findings of a new report from the Rhodium Group, a California-based energy-research firm that produces independent analyses of American climate policy.
The report finds that in order to make its 2030 goal, the U.S. needs to cut emissions about 40% faster than current estimates project. That is doable, but it will require a broad societal effort, Ben King, an author of the report and an associate director at the Rhodium Group, told me. Rhodium dubs this playbook the “joint action” scenario.
“It’s totally appropriate to look at it and say [the Paris goals] are within reach,” he said. “But being within reach doesn’t mean it’s an easy reach.”
Those policies will not be easy to pass, although according to King, they should make economic sense: The policies and actions necessary to make the Paris goal should help American households somewhere on the order of $290 to $350 a year.
The high, mid, low ranges reflect uncertainty around future fossil fuel prices, economic growth, and clean-energy technology costs.The Rhodium Group
Under the Paris Agreement, the U.S. has committed to reducing its annual emissions 50 to 52% by 2030, as compared to the all-time high that they reached in 2005. For reference, American emissions were about 15.5% below their all-time high last year, according to an early estimate. So the country obviously has a long way to go.
Some emissions cuts are already baked in, however. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, America is on track to get its emissions about 40% below their all-time high by 2030, the report says. (There’s some uncertainty here: If fossil-fuel prices spike and the IRA is more successful than hoped, American emissions could fall as much as 42% below their all-time high; if fossil-fuel prices crash, renewable prices spike, and the IRA founders, then emissions may only fall 32% of the way below their all-time high.) So in order to make its Paris goal, the country must find an extra 10 percentage points of emissions cuts — and it must do so quickly enough to make a difference eight years from now.
So what will that require? Consider this a check list to making America’s Paris Agreement goals:
First, the Environmental Protection Administration must adopt a robust set of anti-pollution rules across several parts of the economy, King said. It must use the Clean Air Act to pass stringent new limits on how much greenhouse-gas pollution that power plants can pump into the atmosphere — and it must tighten existing rules on conventional air pollution, including toxic airborne mercury and smog that crosses state lines. The EPA also has to finalize its rules on methane pollution from oil and gas facilities, and it has to strengthen its rules for tailpipe pollution from cars and trucks so that they run to 2030.
Other federal agencies must take new actions, too. The Department of Energy needs to strengthen its energy-efficiency standards, which apply to home appliances, building equipment, and industrial machinery, King said. And the Department of Agriculture must finish setting up a program that pays farmers and foresters to use climate-smart practices.
These executive actions must then survive judicial scrutiny and remain on the books until 2030, enduring a change of presidential administration in 2024 or 2028. How likely is that? Not as improbable as you might think. Many of the rules, including the Energy Department standards and most of the EPA’s regulation, clearly falls within their respective agency’s authority, and Congress has already funded the program for climate-smart farming. But some rules, particularly the EPA’s greenhouse-gas rules for power plants, could test the conservative Supreme Court’s limits. Last year, that court struck down the EPA’s attempt to establish a carbon cap-and-trade scheme under the Clean Air Act; the justices also claimed the right to strike down any executive action that raises a “major” political question. But that ruling didn’t forbid the EPA from everissuing carbon-related regulations, and the agency could publish a new and much simpler rule that will accomplish the same carbon cuts at greater cost.
Yet even an aggressive suite of federal rules won’t be enough to achieve the country’s 2030 goal, the report found. When layered on top of the IRA, those federal programs will get the country’s emissions only about 46% below their all-time high. The country still needs to find another four to six percentage points of emissions cuts in order to lock in Paris.
So states must step up. About 20 states belong to the U.S. Climate Alliance, a pact of largely Democratic governors who committed to meeting the Paris Agreement goals. Those states must adopt “best-in-class policies,” King said, including clean-energy standards, zero-emissions targets, and low-carbon fuel standards. They must fund and grow their public-transit systems. But even that won’t be enough. In order for the U.S. to meet its goals, every utility with a clean-electricity pledge in 2030 or 2050 must have either achieved its goal or be well on its way to doing so.
If all that happens — and fossil-fuel prices don’t collapse, solar-panel and wind-turbine prices don’t spike, and the IRA isn’t rendered ineffectual or repealed outright — then the U.S. could barely make its 2030 Paris goals.
This litany of policies might seem far-fetched, but remember: The IRA, which will take America most of the way to meeting its 2030 goal, itself once seemed impossible. Finishing that journey will require many smaller impossibilities. But such is the work when the prize — a wealthy economy that is well on its way to total decarbonization — is so sweet.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Senate’s reconciliation bill essentially repeals the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, abolishing fines for automakers that sell too many gas guzzlers.
A new provision in the Senate reconciliation bill would neuter the country’s fuel efficiency standards for automakers, gutting one of the federal government’s longest-running programs to manage gasoline prices and air pollution.
The new provision — which was released on Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee — would essentially strip the government of its ability to enforce the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE standards.
The CAFE rules are the government’s main program to improve the fuel economy of new cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States. Over the past 20 years, the rules have helped push the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to record highs even as consumers have adopted crossovers and SUVs en masse.
But the Republican reconciliation bill would essentially end the program as a practical concern for automakers. It would set all fines issued under the program to zero, stripping the government of its ability to punish automakers that sell too many polluting vehicles.
“It would essentially eviscerate the standard without actually doing so directly,” Ann Carlson, a UCLA law professor who led the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 2022 to 2023, told me.
“‘It says that, ‘We have standards here, but we don’t care if you comply or not. If you don’t comply, we’re not going to hold you responsible,’” she said.
Representatives for the Senate Commerce Committee did not respond to an immediate request for comment. A talking points memo released by the committee on Thursday said that the new bill would “[bring] down automobile prices modestly by eliminating CAFE penalties on automakers that design cars to conform to the wishes of D.C. bureaucrats rather than consumers.”
Since 1975, Congress has required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (pronounced NIT-suh) to set annual fuel efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules generally require new vehicles sold nationwide to get a little more fuel efficient, on average, every year.
The rules have remained in effect — with varying levels of stringency — for 50 years, although they have generally encouraged automakers to get more efficient since Congress strengthened the law on a bipartisan basis in 2007.
In model-year 2023, the most recent period for which data is available, new cars and light trucks achieved a real-world fuel economy of 27.1 miles per gallon, an all-time high. The vehicle fleet was set to hit another record high in 2024, according to last year’s report.
Opponents of the fuel economy rules argue that the regulations increase the sticker price of new cars and trucks and push automakers to build less profitable vehicles. The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that published Project 2025, has called the rules a “backdoor EV mandate.”
The rules’ supporters say that the standards are necessary because consumers don’t take fuel costs — or the environmental or public health costs of air pollution — into account when buying a vehicle. They say the rules keep gasoline prices low for all Americans by encouraging fuel efficiency across the board.
The strict Biden-era rules were projected to save consumers $23 billion in gasoline costs, according to an agency analysis. The American Lung Association said that the rules would prevent more than 2 million pediatric asthma attacks and save hundreds of infant lives by 2050.
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy has targeted the fuel economy rules as part of a wide-ranging effort to roll back Biden-era energy policy. On January 28, as his first official act, Duffy ordered NHTSA to retroactively weaken the rules for all cars and light trucks sold after model-year 2022.
On Friday, Duffy separately issued a legal opinion that would restrict NHTSA’s ability to include electric vehicles in its real-world estimates of the country’s fuel economy rules. The opinion sets up the next round of CAFE rules to be considerably weaker than existing law.
But the new Republican reconciliation bill, if adopted, would render those rules moot.
Under current law, automakers must pay a fine when the average fuel economy of the vehicles they sell exceeds the fuel economy standard set for that year. Automakers can avoid paying that penalty by buying “credits” from other car companies that have done better than the rules require.
The fine’s size is set by a formula written into the law. That calculation includes the number of cars sold above the fuel-economy threshold, how much those cars exceeded it, and a $5 multiplier. The GOP tax bill rewrites the law to set the multiplier to zero dollars.
In essence, no matter how much an automaker exceeds the fuel economy rules, the GOP reconciliation bill will now multiply their fine by zero.
The original CAFE law contains a second formula allowing the government to set even higher penalties if doing so would achieve “substantial energy conservation.” The new reconciliation bill sets the multiplier in this formula, too, to zero dollars.
The CAFE law’s penalties can be significant. The automaker Stellantis, which owns Fiat and Chrysler, recently paid more than $426 million in penalties for cars sold from model year 2018 to 2020. Last year, General Motors paid a $38 million fine for light trucks sold in model year 2020.
The CAFE provision in the GOP mega-bill seems designed to skirt past the Byrd rule, a Senate rule that policies in reconciliation bills must affect revenue, spending, or generally have more than a “merely incidental” effect on the federal budget.
But Carlson, the former NHTSA acting administrator, doubted whether the provision should really survive a Byrd bath.
Zeroing out the fines is “not really about revenue,” she said, but about compliance with the law. “This is a way to try to couch repeal of CAFE in revenue terms instead of doing it outright.”
And more of the week’s top news about renewable energy conflicts.
1. Nassau County, New York – Opponents of Equinor’s offshore Empire Wind project are now suing to stop construction after the Trump administration quietly lifted its stop-work order.
2. Somerset County, Maryland – A referendum campaign in rural Maryland seeks to restrict solar development on farmland.
3. Tazewell County, Virginia – An Energix solar project is still in the works in this rural county bordering West Virginia, despite a restrictive ordinance.
4. Allan County, Indiana – This county, which includes portions of Fort Wayne, will be holding a hearing next week on changing its current solar zoning rules.
5. Madison County, Indiana – Elsewhere in Indiana, Invenergy has abandoned the Lone Oak solar project amidst fervent opposition and mounting legal hurdles.
6. Adair County, Missouri – This county may soon be home to the largest solar farm in Missouri and is in talks for another project, despite having a high opposition intensity index in the Heatmap Pro database.
7. Newtown County, Arkansas – A fifth county in Arkansas has now banned wind projects.
8. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma – A data center fight is gaining steam as activists on the ground push to block the center on grounds it would result in new renewable energy projects.
9. Bell County, Texas – Fox News is back in our newsletter, this time for platforming the campaign against solar on land suitable for agriculture.
10. Monterey County, California – The Moss Landing battery fire story continues to develop, as PG&E struggles to restart the remaining battery storage facility remaining on site.
A conversation with Biao Gong of Morningstar
This week’s conversation is with Biao Gong, an analyst with Morningstar who this week published an analysis looking at the credit risks associated with offshore wind projects. Obviously I wanted to talk to him about the situation in the U.S., whether it’s still a place investors consider open for business, and if our country’s actions impact the behavior of others.
The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
What led you to write this analysis?
What prompted me was our experience in assigning [private] ratings to offshore wind projects in Europe and wanted to figure out what was different [for rating] with onshore and offshore wind. It was the result of our recent work, which is private, but we’ve seen the trend – a lot of the big players in the offshore wind space are kind of trying to partner up with private equity firms to sell their interests, their operating offshore wind assets. But to raise that they’ll need credit ratings and we’ve seen those transactions. This is a growing area in Europe, because Europe has to rely on offshore wind to achieve its climate goals and secure their energy independence.
The report goes through risks in many ways, including challenging conditions for construction. Tell me about the challenges that offshore wind faces specifically as an investment risk.
The principle behind offshore wind is so different than onshore wind. You’re converting wind energy to electricity but obviously there are a bunch of areas where we believe it is riskier. That doesn’t mean you can’t fund those projects but you need additional mitigants.
This includes construction risk. It can take three to five years to complete an offshore wind project. The marine condition, the climate condition, you can’t do that [work] throughout the year and you need specialized vehicles, helicopters, crews that are so labor intensive. That’s versus onshore, which is pre-fabricated where you have a foundation and assemble it. Once you have an idea of the geotechnical conditions, the risk is just less.
There’s also the permitting process, which can be very challenging. How do you not interrupt the marine ecosystem? That’s something the regulators pay attention to. It’s definitely more than an onshore project, which means you need other mitigants for the lender to feel comfortable.
With respect to the permitting risk, how much of that is the risk of opposition from vacation towns, environmentalists, fisheries?
To be honest, we usually come in after all the critical permitting is in place, before money is given by a lender, but I also think that on the government’s side, in Europe at least, they probably have to encourage the development. And to put out an auction for an area you can build an offshore wind project, they must’ve gone through their own assessment, right? They can’t put out something that they also think may hurt an ecosystem, but that’s my speculation.
A country that did examine the impacts and offer lots of ocean floor for offshore is the U.S. What’s your take on offshore wind development in our country?
Once again, because we’re a rating agency, we don’t have much insight into early stage projects. But with that, our view is pretty gloomy. It’s like, if you haven’t started a project in the U.S., no one is going to buy it. There’s a bunch of projects already under construction, and there was the Empire Wind stop order that was lifted. I think that’s positive, but only to a degree, right? It just means this project under construction can probably go ahead. Those things will go ahead and have really strong developers with strong balance sheets. But they’re going to face additional headwinds, too, because of tariffs – that’s a different story.
We don’t see anything else going ahead.
Does the U.S. behaving this way impact the view you have for offshore wind in other countries, or is this an isolated thing?
It’s very isolated. Europe is just going full-steam ahead because the advantage here is you can build a wind farm that provides 2 or 3 gigawatts – that’s just massive. China, too. The U.S. is very different – and not just offshore. The entire renewables sector. We could revisit the U.S. four or five years from today, but [the U.S.] is going to be pretty difficult for the renewables sector.