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:
Starting April 18, fewer EVs will be eligible for the new $7,500 tax credits unveiled last year.

If you’ve been considering a new electric vehicle or hybrid these past few months, and you think you’ve gotten a pretty good handle on how the revised EV tax credits work, the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS have an unspoken message for you: Do it soon. The rules are about to change.
Again.
Today, federal officials announced changes to the EV tax credit plan around minerals and batteries. As esoteric and complicated as it sounds (and in fact, is) the headline for prospective buyers is that starting April 18, fewer EVs will be eligible for the new $7,500 tax credits unveiled last year as part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
In short, these changes are being made today to guarantee that the full $7,500 EV tax credit goes toward not just cars built in North America, but cars containing battery components made on this continent as well. Moreover, it seeks to guarantee that certain critical minerals in those batteries come from countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement. Each requirement is worth up to $3,750.
Granted, “Where are your minerals from?” doesn’t quite have the same ring as “How much horsepower are you putting down?” to car aficionados. But these changes to the EV tax credits will reverberate through the car market and the entire auto industry.
In the short term, this means fewer EVs will qualify for the tax credits, even if they are made in North America. But in the longer term, it could create a major battery ecosystem here as well.
It’s worth keeping in mind the two car-related goals of the IRA when you consider these changes. One was to reduce carbon emissions by modernizing the EV tax credit scheme and spurring wider electric car adoption (which the incentives seem to be doing).
The other goal is to build a localized, North America-centric supply chain for batteries and EVs so that China — a peer state with whom U.S. tensions are quickly rising — cannot dominate the industry. Given China’s own aggressive EV industry push, things were certainly trending that way before.
“We need to build a clean energy supply chain that is not dependent on China,” a senior Treasury official said on a press call with reporters on Thursday. The official said that the revised guidance will reduce the number of vehicles that qualify in the short term, but will create incentives to bring supply chains and manufacturing to the U.S. These requirements will significantly increase the number of EVs made in North America over the next decade, officials believe, with more qualifying over the next decade than under the admittedly outdated pre-IRA policy.
The clear downside to all of this is that it could mean fewer EV sales for now if more cars lose the full $7,500 credit. That decision does run counter to the IRA’s goals of cutting car emissions, and it could dampen the hopes of car companies looking to make big EV product pushes in the coming years. Battery plants and mineral processing facilities will likely take years to get up and running. Ford, for example, is building a $3.5 billion Michigan battery plant but it isn’t projected to start making batteries until 2026.
As a result, some urgency may be warranted for EV buyers who want to take advantage of the full $7,500 tax credit. Until April 18, those rules mean that regardless of battery sourcing or minerals, cars like the Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Bolt, Ford F-150 Lightning, Mustang Mach-E, Volkswagen ID.4, and multiple U.S.-made hybrids from BMW, Audi, and Volvo qualify for some or all of those credits, depending on the car’s price and the buyer’s income.
But automakers have said, correctly, that it takes years to set up local EV production, not to mention the local battery manufacturing and approved mineral sourcing. Hyundai and Kia, for example, make stellar EVs but they are made in South Korea, so they will no longer qualify for any EV tax credits — much to those automakers’ vocal chagrin. Other automakers may make their EVs locally but don’t meet the mineral sourcing requirements after April 18.
Moreover, the battery component requirement increases every year. Starting this year, to secure $3,750 of the tax credit — half of $7,500 — 50% of the battery components must be manufactured or assembled in North America. That rises 10% each year until 2029 when the battery must be entirely made on this continent to qualify for the full tax credit.
(Furthermore, starting next year, no EV will be eligible for any tax credit if its battery was made by “a foreign entity of concern,” which generally refers to China; in many ways, this cuts China’s battery industry out of the American auto supply chain because car companies won’t sacrifice their tax incentives to competitors just to use Chinese batteries.)
So what does this mean for car prices, exactly? That’s the tricky part. As with past changes to the IRA, it’s hard to say right now — automakers are currently sourcing batteries from a variety of places as they seek to ramp up local production.
Heatmap reached out to multiple automakers to determine if their car prices would be impacted.
General Motors indicated it’s waiting to learn more from the federal government before making a determination. “We believe GM is well-positioned because we were already actively pursuing opportunities to localize as much of the supply chain as possible,” a GM spokesperson said.
Ford thanked the Biden administration in an upbeat note from its CEO Jim Farley for clarifying the “important details” of the IRA. “Ford continues to accelerate our investment in America thanks to this important policy initiative,” Farley said, noting Ford would help its customers understand their eligibility for the tax credits.
In a statement sent to Heatmap, Volvo said it was reviewing the rules but remains “concerned that the consumer tax credit is overly complex and contains several immediate limitations.” It also pushed for a trade agreement with the European Union, saying “open markets and overall free trade policies lead to an increase in global economic prosperity, innovation, and higher living standards for people around the world.”
Officials from Toyota did not return a request for comment. (Toyota further declined to comment on the effects of a new trade deal on EV battery minerals signed between Japan and the U.S. this week that could potentially impact some of its cars.)
Federal officials said that on April 18, a revised list of eligible vehicles will be posted to FuelEconomy.gov, and it will also include the amount of credit available.
But that’s still a few weeks away. EV and hybrid buyers may do well to make a purchase before the rules change — that is, if they can find a car to buy. Many new EVs remain tough to find thanks to supply chain challenges and are on average pricier than ICE counterparts.
The answer is clear: Like a Mustang Mach-E using launch control, move fast before things change.
This article was updated at 10:55AM ET on March 31, 2023.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.