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:
Here’s what we know so far, including what’s changed since last year.
The Biden administration announced final new emissions standards for cars on Wednesday, significantly curtailing both the carbon dioxide and the toxic soot and chemicals that spew from the tailpipes of the nation’s light- and medium-duty vehicles.
With that, Biden is checking off one of the two most important pieces of unfinished climate business he has left on his first term to-do list. The rules tighten pollution limits gradually over six years, beginning in 2027. In concert with other Biden policies including consumer tax credits for electric vehicles purchases, initiatives to build out charging infrastructure, and support for domestic manufacturing, the standards will help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles that is already well underway.
Transportation is responsible for more planet-warming emissions than any other part of the U.S. economy. To get the country on the path of reaching net zero emissions by 2050, as Biden has set out to do, curbing car emissions is unavoidable.
When the rules were originally proposed last year, we wrote that they would “roughly halve carbon pollution from America’s massive car and truck fleet, the world’s third largest, within a decade.” That’s still broadly the case, even though the final version features one big change: Automakers will now have more time to cut emissions from their fleets. They will still have to achieve the same standard in 2032 as what was originally proposed, but they can transition to it more slowly.
Ahead of the official release, senior administration officials downplayed the significance of the slower rollout. They argued that giving automakers, dealers, and labor unions more time in the near-term would make for a sturdier rule, and that the cumulative emissions benefits of the final standard converge with the original proposal. At a White House event on Wednesday, members of the president’s climate team built on that message, framing the new rules not as a government mandate but rather as a tool to give consumers more of what they already want. “We are witnessing a technological revolution driven by the markets,” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan proclaimed.
Also speaking at the event was John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents most U.S. automakers, including the Big Three. Bozzella praised the administration for heeding the industry’s concerns over the original proposal’s rapid phase-in and said the new rules were “much improved” from what had initially been proposed. “Pace matters to automakers,” he said. “It certainly matters to consumers.”
The full rule was released mid-day Wednesday, and we’re digging through it to find out exactly what else has changed. But here’s what we know so far.
The rules strengthen greenhouse gas emission limits, in terms of grams of CO2 per mile, that automakers will have to adhere to, on average, across their product lines. They also tighten limits on dangerous pollutants, including particulate matter — the tiny bits that make up soot — and nitrogen oxides.
This chart shows how the cuts in the final rule compare to those proposed in the draft rule. The version released last April required automakers to make steeper reductions to carbon emissions in the first three years, while the final rule allows for a more gradual reduction.
No. They are what’s called technology-neutral standards, meaning that automakers have options for how to comply with them. Since automakers have to meet the emissions targets on average across their fleets, rather than for each vehicle, it’s likely they’ll produce a range of options in 2032, including plug-in hybrids, regular hybrids, and even some gas cars with improved efficiency — though their fleets will probably have a much higher proportion of EVs than they do now.
While that generally hasn’t changed from the preliminary rule, the Biden administration’s messaging around it has.
When it released the initial proposal, the EPA emphasized that the least-cost path to achieving the standards would be for about two-thirds of new vehicles sold in 2032 to be electric. Although this was just one potential scenario, it was widely interpreted as a target or even a mandate — particularly by Biden’s political opponents.
On Tuesday, administration officials said that the two-thirds finding had been based on limited data. The EPA now estimates that EVs may make up anywhere between 30% and 56% of new light-duty sales from model years 2030 to 2032.
By 2032, the light-duty fleet on offer from automakers will emit half as much carbon as vehicles on the market in 2026.
The EPA estimates that these rules will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon from 2027 to 2055, which accounts for the vehicles’ full lifetime on the road. That’s slightly less than the 7.3 billion metric tons the initial proposal would have avoided.
The rules will change the mix of vehicles sold by automakers, encouraging dealers to sell more hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles. They’re also expected to save Americans roughly $62 billion in fuel costs and avoided maintenance costs, since the EPA assumes that EVs are still cheaper to operate and maintain. On average, a consumer will save about $6,000 over the lifetime of a 2032 vehicle compared to one sold in 2026, according to the agency.
The tailpipe rule will likely increase the cost of building each vehicle, which could translate into higher prices for consumers. However, state and federal tax incentives — as well as the cheaper cost of operating and fueling EVs — will offset that increase.
The rules are projected to deliver major health and environmental benefits to the public. The EPA estimates they will produce $37 billion in benefits from improved public health and climate mitigation, including avoided hospitalizations and premature deaths.
This is what the EPA was created to do — use the best available science to protect human health and the environment. But even after decades of improvements in air quality, there is still a lot of room for improvement. More than one third of the population still live in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate pollution, according to The American Lung Association’s most recent “ state of the air” report. The risks are deeply unequal, with people of color making up half of those exposed. The report also noted that climate change is making it harder to protect people, as heat, drought, and wildfires increasingly lead to spikes in these pollutants. Altogether, ozone and particulate matter are responsible for more than 60,000 premature deaths annually, according to the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit, independent research organization funded by the EPA and automakers.
Officials stressed that EV sales are already shattering analyst predictions, prices are dropping, and product availability is growing. They see this rule as part of a larger ecosystem of policies — including those in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act — that are revitalizing American manufacturing and creating jobs while also contributing to the global fight against climate change. The EPA’s press release notes that companies have announced more than $160 billion in domestic clean vehicle manufacturing, and that the auto manufacturing sector as a whole has added more than 100,000 jobs since Biden took office.
The administration is also, perhaps less loudly, selling the pollution standards as a path to freedom from fossil fuels. During the press call Tuesday, a senior administration official said the rules would enable consumers to break loose from the oil industry’s grip on how we get around and how much it costs us.
The new rules kick in for cars in model year 2027, which will go on sale in 2026 and are being designed right now. Although the Biden administration has suggested that the new rules have won the support of the car industry — including automakers, labor unions, and dealerships — it could still face a court challenge from attorneys general in Republican-controlled states. Republican officials have repeatedly sued to block the Biden administration’s climate policies.
It’s unclear how the Supreme Court would respond to such a challenge. Although the Court has long backed the EPA’s ability to limit climate pollution from cars and trucks, its hard-right majority has recently rolled back what were once thought to be bedrock environmental laws. In this term alone, the Court seems likely to restrict the EPA’s ability to regulate toxic air pollution while sweeping away a central legal doctrine of environmental regulation.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the White House event announcing the new rules.
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 agency provided a list to the Sierra Club, which in turn provided the list to Heatmap.
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency remain closed-lipped about which grants they’ve canceled. Earlier this week, however, the office provided a written list to the Sierra Club in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, which begins to shed light on some of the agency’s actions.
The document shows 49 individual grants that were either “canceled” or prevented from being awarded from January 20 through March 7, which is the day the public information office conducted its search in response to the FOIA request. The grants’ total cumulative value is more than $230 million, although some $30 million appears to have already been paid out to recipients.
The numbers don’t quite line up with what the agency has said publicly. The EPA published three press releases between Trump’s inauguration and March 7, announcing that it had canceled a total of 42 grants and “saved” Americans roughly $227 million. In its first such announcement on February 14, the agency said it was canceling a $50 million grant to the Climate Justice Alliance, but the only grant to that organization on the FOIA spreadsheet is listed at $12 million. To make matters more confusing, there are only $185 million worth of EPA grant cuts listed on the Department of Government Efficiency’s website from the same time period. (Zeldin later announced more than 400 additional grant terminations on March 10.)
Nonetheless, the document gives a clearer picture of which grants Administrator Lee Zeldin has targeted. Nearly half of the canceled grants are related to environmental justice initiatives, which is not surprising, given the Trump administration’s directives to root out these types of programs. But nearly as many were funding research into lower-carbon construction materials and better product labeling to prevent greenwashing.
Here’s the full list of grants, by program:
A few more details and observations from this list:
In the original FOIA request, Sierra Club had asked for a lot more information, including communications between EPA and the grant recipients, and explanations for why the grants — which in many cases involved binding contracts between the government and recipients — were being terminated. In its response, EPA said it was still working on the rest of the request and expected to issue a complete response by April 12.
Defenders of the Inflation Reduction Act have hit on what they hope will be a persuasive argument for why it should stay.
With the fate of the Inflation Reduction Act and its tax credits for building and producing clean energy hanging in the balance, the law’s supporters have increasingly turned to dollars-and-cents arguments in favor of its preservation. Since the election, industry and research groups have put out a handful of reports making the broad argument that in addition to higher greenhouse gas emissions, taking away these tax credits would mean higher electricity bills.
The American Clean Power Association put out a report in December, authored by the consulting firm ICF, arguing that “energy tax credits will drive $1.9 trillion in growth, creating 13.7 million jobs and delivering 4x return on investment.”
The Solar Energy Industries Association followed that up last month with a letter citing an analysis by Aurora Energy Research, which found that undoing the tax credits for wind, solar, and storage would reduce clean energy deployment by 237 gigawatts through 2040 and cost nearly 100,000 jobs, all while raising bills by hundreds of dollars in Texas and New York. (Other groups, including the conservative environmental group ConservAmerica and the Clean Energy Buyers Association have commissioned similar research and come up with similar results.)
And just this week, Energy Innovation, a clean energy research group that had previously published widely cited research arguing that clean energy deployment was not linked to the run-up in retail electricity prices, published a report that found repealing the Inflation Reduction Act would “increase cumulative household energy costs by $32 billion” over the next decade, among other economic impacts.
The tax credits “make clean energy even more economic than it already is, particularly for developers,” explained Energy Innovation senior director Robbie Orvis. “When you add more of those technologies, you bring down the electricity cost significantly,” he said.
Historically, the price of fossil fuels like natural gas and coal have set the wholesale price for electricity. With renewables, however, the operating costs associated with procuring those fuels go away. The fewer of those you have, “the lower the price drops,” Orvis said. Without the tax credits to support the growth and deployment of renewables, the analysis found that annual energy costs per U.S. household would go up some $48 annually by 2030, and $68 by 2035.
These arguments come at a time when retail electricity prices in much of the country have grown substantially. Since December 2019, average retail electricity prices have risen from about $0.13 per kilowatt-hour to almost $0.18, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Massachusetts and California, rates are over $0.30 a kilowatt-hour, according to the Energy Information Administration. As Energy Innovation researchers have pointed out, states with higher renewable penetration sometimes have higher rates, including California, but often do not, as in South Dakota, where 77% of its electricity comes from renewables.
Retail electricity prices are not solely determined by fuel costs Distribution costs for maintaining the whole electrical system are also a factor. In California, for example,it’s these costs that have driven a spike in rates, as utilities have had to harden their grids against wildfires. Across the whole country, utilities have had to ramp up capital investment in grid equipment as it’s aged, driving up distribution costs, a 2024 Energy Innovation report argued.
A similar analysis by Aurora Energy Research (the one cited by SEIA) that just looked at investment and production tax credits for wind, solar, and batteries found that if they were removed, electricity bills would increase hundreds of dollars per year on average, and by as much as $40 per month in New York and $29 per month in Texas.
One reason the bill impact could be so high, Aurora’s Martin Anderson told me, is that states with aggressive goals for decarbonizing the electricity sector would still have to procure clean energy in a world where its deployment would have gotten more expensive. New York is targetinga target for getting 70% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, while Minnesota has a goal for its utilities to sell 55% clean electricity by 2035 and could see its average cost increase by $22 a month. Some of these states may have to resort to purchasing renewable energy certificates to make up the difference as new generation projects in the state become less attractive.
Bills in Texas, on the other hand, would likely go up because wind and solar investment would slow down, meaning that Texans’ large-scale energy consumption would be increasingly met with fossil fuels (Texas has a Renewable Portfolio Standard that it has long since surpassed).
This emphasis from industry and advocacy groups on the dollars and cents of clean energy policy is hardly new — when the House of Representatives passed the (doomed) Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill in 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the House, “Remember these four words for what this legislation means: jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.”
More recently, when Democratic Senators Martin Heinrich and Tim Kaine hosted a press conference to press their case for preserving the Inflation Reduction Act, the email that landed in reporters’ inboxes read “Heinrich, Kaine Host Press Conference on Trump’s War on Affordable, American-Made Energy.”
“Trump’s war on the Inflation Reduction Act will kill American jobs, raise costs on families, weaken our economic competitiveness, and erode American global energy dominance,” Heinrich told me in an emailed statement. “Trump should end his destructive crusade on affordable energy and start putting the interests of working people first.”
That the impacts and benefits of the IRA are spread between blue and red states speaks to the political calculation of clean energy proponents, hoping that a bill that subsidized solar panels in Texas, battery factories in Georgia, and battery storage in Southern California could bring about a bipartisan alliance to keep it alive. While Congressional Republicans will be scouring the budget for every last dollar to help fund an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a group of House Republicans have gone on the record in defense of the IRA’s tax credits.
“There's been so much research on the emissions impact of the IRA over the past few years, but there's been comparatively less research on the economic benefits and the household energy benefits,” Orvis said. “And I think that one thing that's become evident in the last year or so is that household energy costs — inflation, fossil fuel prices — those do seem to be more top of mind for Americans.”
Opinion modeling from Heatmap Pro shows that lower utility bills is the number one perceived benefit of renewables in much of the country. The only counties where it isn’t the number one perceived benefit are known for being extremely wealthy, extremely crunchy, or both: Boulder and Denver in Colorado; Multnomah (a.k.a. Portland) in Oregon; Arlington in Virginia; and Chittenden in Vermont.
On environmental justice grants, melting glaciers, and Amazon’s carbon credits
Current conditions: Severe thunderstorms are expected across the Mississippi Valley this weekend • Storm Martinho pushed Portugal’s wind power generation to “historic maximums” • It’s 62 degrees Fahrenheit, cloudy, and very quiet at Heathrow Airport outside London, where a large fire at an electricity substation forced the international travel hub to close.
President Trump invoked emergency powers Thursday to expand production of critical minerals and reduce the nation’s reliance on other countries. The executive order relies on the Defense Production Act, which “grants the president powers to ensure the nation’s defense by expanding and expediting the supply of materials and services from the domestic industrial base.”
Former President Biden invoked the act several times during his term, once to accelerate domestic clean energy production, and another time to boost mining and critical minerals for the nation’s large-capacity battery supply chain. Trump’s order calls for identifying “priority projects” for which permits can be expedited, and directs the Department of the Interior to prioritize mineral production and mining as the “primary land uses” of federal lands that are known to contain minerals.
Critical minerals are used in all kinds of clean tech, including solar panels, EV batteries, and wind turbines. Trump’s executive order doesn’t mention these technologies, but says “transportation, infrastructure, defense capabilities, and the next generation of technology rely upon a secure, predictable, and affordable supply of minerals.”
Anonymous current and former staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency have penned an open letter to the American people, slamming the Trump administration’s attacks on climate grants awarded to nonprofits under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The letter, published in Environmental Health News, focuses mostly on the grants that were supposed to go toward environmental justice programs, but have since been frozen under the current administration. For example, Climate United was awarded nearly $7 billion to finance clean energy projects in rural, Tribal, and low-income communities.
“It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for the U.S. government to cancel its agreements with grantees and contractors,” the letter states. “It is fraud for the U.S. government to delay payments for services already received. And it is an abuse of power for the Trump administration to block the IRA laws that were mandated by Congress.”
The lives of 2 billion people, or about a quarter of the human population, are threatened by melting glaciers due to climate change. That’s according to UNESCO’s new World Water Development Report, released to correspond with the UN’s first World Day for Glaciers. “As the world warms, glaciers are melting faster than ever, making the water cycle more unpredictable and extreme,” the report says. “And because of glacial retreat, floods, droughts, landslides, and sea-level rise are intensifying, with devastating consequences for people and nature.” Some key stats about the state of the world’s glaciers:
In case you missed it: Amazon has started selling “high-integrity science-based carbon credits” to its suppliers and business customers, as well as companies that have committed to being net-zero by 2040 in line with Amazon’s Climate Pledge, to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions.
“The voluntary carbon market has been challenged with issues of transparency, credibility, and the availability of high-quality carbon credits, which has led to skepticism about nature and technological carbon removal as an effective tool to combat climate change,” said Kara Hurst, chief sustainability officer at Amazon. “However, the science is clear: We must halt and reverse deforestation and restore millions of miles of forests to slow the worst effects of climate change. We’re using our size and high vetting standards to help promote additional investments in nature, and we are excited to share this new opportunity with companies who are also committed to the difficult work of decarbonizing their operations.”
The Bureau of Land Management is close to approving the environmental review for a transmission line that would connect to BluEarth Renewables’ Lucky Star wind project, Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reports in The Fight. “This is a huge deal,” she says. “For the last two months it has seemed like nothing wind-related could be approved by the Trump administration. But that may be about to change.”
BLM sent local officials an email March 6 with a draft environmental assessment for the transmission line, which is required for the federal government to approve its right-of-way under the National Environmental Policy Act. According to the draft, the entirety of the wind project is sited on private property and “no longer will require access to BLM-administered land.”
The email suggests this draft environmental assessment may soon be available for public comment. BLM’s web page for the transmission line now states an approval granting right-of-way may come as soon as May. BLM last week did something similar with a transmission line that would go to a solar project proposed entirely on private lands. Holzman wonders: “Could private lands become the workaround du jour under Trump?”
Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, this week launched a pilot direct air capture unit capable of removing 12 tons of carbon dioxide per year. In 2023 alone, the company’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions totalled 72.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.