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:
Dozens of people are reporting problems claiming the subsidy — and it’s not even Trump’s fault.

Eric Walker, of Zanesville, Ohio, bought a Ford F-150 Lightning in March of last year. Ironically, Walker designs and manufactures bearings for internal combustion engines for a living. But he drives 70 miles to and from his job, and he was thrilled not to have to pay for gas anymore. “I love it so much. I honestly don’t think I could ever go back to a non-EV,” he told me. “It’s just more fun, more punchy.”
But although he’s saving on gas, Walker recently learned he’d made a major, expensive mistake at the dealership when he bought the truck. The F-150 Lightning qualified for a federal tax credit of $7,500 in 2024. Walker was income-eligible and planned to claim it when he filed his taxes. But his dealership never reported the sale to the Internal Revenue Service, and at the time, Walker had no idea this was required. When he went to submit his tax return recently, it was rejected. Now, it may be too late.
Walker is not alone. Dozens of users on Reddit have been sharing near-identical stories as tax season has gotten underway — and it’s only early February. It is unclear exactly how many EV buyers are affected. What we do know is that it will be up to the Trump administration’s Treasury Department to decide whether any of them will get the refund they were counting on — the same administration that wants to kill the tax credit altogether.
The problem dates back to a change in the process for claiming the tax credit. For the 2023 tax year, dealers had until January 15, 2024 to report eligible EV sales to the IRS. For 2024, however, the IRS introduced a new, digital reporting system and new deadlines. Starting in January 2024, if a customer bought an eligible vehicle and wanted to claim the tax credit, dealerships were required to file a report within three days of the time of sale to the IRS through a web portal called Energy Credits Online.
This change coincided with another: Buyers now had the option to transfer the credit to their dealership instead of claiming it themselves. The dealer could then take the value of the credit off the price of the car and get reimbursed by the IRS. This was voluntary on the dealerships’ part, and many opted in. By October, more than 300,000 EV sales had used this transfer option, according to the Treasury Department. But apparently there were also many dealers who didn’t want to bother with it. And at least some of them never bothered to learn about the online portal at all.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Charlie Gerk, an engineer living in the suburbs of Minneapolis, bought a Chrysler Pacifica plug-in electric hybrid in February after his wife had twins. Unlike Walker, Gerk knew all about the workings of the tax credit, and he wanted to get his discount up front. But the dealership he was working with — a smaller, family-run business — had not gotten set up to do it. “He’s like, ‘We sell six EVs a year, we’re not going to take the time to sign up for that program,’” Gerk recalled the salesman saying. Gerk decided to claim the tax credit himself, and the dealership even gave him a few hundred bucks off the car since he’d have to wait a year to see the refund. He then emailed the dealership instructions from the IRS for reporting the sale through the online portal, and the dealership assured him it would submit the information. It sent Gerk a copy of form 15400, an IRS “Clean Vehicle Seller Report,” for him to keep for his records — except that the form was dated 2023. When Gerk inquired about it, the finance manager told him it was just because it was still so early in the year, and that they would make sure it got filed appropriately online.
Fast forward to one year later, and Gerk came across a post in the Pacifica Reddit forum from someone whose claim was rejected by the IRS because their dealer failed to report the sale. “I logged into my online dashboard for the IRS, and sure enough, the vehicle’s not there,” Gerk told me. “If it was filed appropriately, it would have shown on my online dashboard that I had an EV clean vehicle credit for 2024, and it’s not there.”
Gerk spoke to his dealership, which said it would look into the situation. He forwarded me an email exchange between the IRS and his dealership in which a representative from the IRS’ Clean Vehicle Team said it was probably too late to fix. “The open period for any unsubmitted time of sale reports is closed,” the staffer wrote. “We are expecting some Energy Credit Online (ECO) updates so contact us via secure messaging in the Spring for additional information.”
Some users on Reddit who, like Gerk, were aware of the reporting requirements when they bought their EVs, have shared stories about visiting more than a dozen dealerships before finding one that was registered with ECO and willing to file the paperwork. Others who didn't know about the rules have recalled inquiring about the tax credit at their dealership and being told they could simply claim it on their taxes. They only found out when they tried to submit their tax paperwork on TurboTax or another e-filing system and received an error message informing them that their vehicle is not registered in the IRS database.
Some blame the dealerships for misleading them and are wondering if they have grounds to sue. Others blame the IRS for not adequately informing customers or dealers about the rules.
“My frustration lies with the fact the IRS would even allow this to be an option,” Gerk told me. “If you’re going to allow the credit to be taken by me, I have to be dependent on my dealer doing the right thing?” (Gerk asked that we not share the name of his dealership.)
I spoke with a former Treasury staffer who worked on the program, who told me that the agency went to great lengths to educate dealerships about the new online portal and filing requirements, including hosting webinars that reached more than 10,000 dealerships and a presentation at the National Automobile Dealership Association’s annual convention in Las Vegas. The agency put up pages of fact sheets, checklists, and other materials for dealers and consumers on the IRS website, they said. But the IRS doesn’t have a marketing budget, and also relied heavily on NADA, the Dealership Association, for help getting the word out.
NADA did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls asking for comment. I also contacted several of the dealerships who sold EVs to buyers who are now having their tax credit claims rejected, none of which got back to me.
Many of the affected buyers are trying to get their dealerships to contact the IRS and see if they can retroactively report the sales, as Gerk did. Some are having more luck than others. When Walker contacted his dealership in Cleveland, Ohio, to see if there was anything it could do to help him, it still seemed to have no idea what he was talking about. Walker forwarded me a response from his dealership asking him if he had spoken to his accountant. “My sales desk is pretty insistent on that this is something your accountant would handle,” it said. (Walker did not want to disclose the name of his dealership as he is still trying to work with them on a solution.)
I reached out to the Treasury Department with a list of questions, including whether this issue was on its radar and what consumers who find themselves in this situation should do. The agency confirmed receipt of the request, but had not gotten back to me by press time. We will update this story if they do. There are reports on Reddit of EV buyers having a similar issue claiming the tax credit in 2024 for purchases made in 2023. Some filed their taxes without the EV credit and then submitted appeals to the IRS after the fact, with seemingly some success.
Buyers stuck in this situation have few other places to turn. Some Reddit users have posted about reaching out to their representatives, who offered to contact the IRS on their behalf. One challenge, as noted by the former Treasury staffer I spoke with, is that unlike the dealers, who have NADA, there is no consumer advocacy group for electric vehicle buyers who can engage with lawmakers and the Treasury and request a solution.
“I don’t necessarily need the money,” Walker told me. “It was just gonna go towards some more student loans — I’m just trying to pay down all of my debt as soon as possible. So I didn’t need it. But it would have been certainly something nice to have.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
One of the largest companies in the world says its products pose catastrophic peril. Sound familiar?
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Imagine, for a moment, a vast and growing firm — a conglomerate that could be said to define its era of American capitalism. Over the past several years, this firm’s products have become the biggest story in the U.S. economy. Its products are so mindbogglingly expensive to produce that they have driven new types of financial and infrastructural innovation, yet nevertheless the company seems to be quite profitable.
And little wonder: Everyone wants what they have. Investors, policymakers, and economists believe that America’s ongoing economic growth and competitiveness depend on ample access to this company’s products. The sitting Republican president has staked his administration on making sure Americans can get as much of it as they want — regulations be damned.
But there is a problem. One of the company’s researchers has become convinced that the company’s products are dangerous — so harmful, in fact, that their continued use and growth trajectory portends catastrophic risk for humanity. He attempts to alert the company’s executives to this fact. What happens next?
Perhaps you know the story. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon’s internal scientists concluded that the ongoing growth of fossil fuels would raise global temperatures and have “potentially catastrophic” effects on the planet’s climate. They presented these results to Exxon’s executives. A senior scientist warned that humanity had a brief window — “five to 10 years” — before “the need for hard choices regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon led a large research effort into climate change, affirming its scientific validity. But then in the late 1980s, its CEO decided to go in the other direction. Its executives chose not to warn the public about climate change — and instead began a successful disinformation campaign meant to convince the public that climate change was not settled science.
But what if things had gone differently? We’re getting a taste of that pathway now. Last week, Sam Coxon, a researcher at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, resigned because he feared the AI industry was too close to building an “out of control” intelligence. He quit his job just a few months before his corporate equity would have vested, giving up what would have likely been life-changing wealth to warn about what he believes to be existential risks. Humanity only had a brief period of time — perhaps a year — to steer the technology to a better path, he said.
Anthropic researchers who remain at the company affirmed his analysis. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” a senior scientist at the company posted on the social network X.
But this time, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, did not respond as Exxon’s leadership did three decades ago. Instead, Amodei basically agreed with Coxon: He asked for the government to regulate artificial intelligence and “pace the frontier,” meaning that it should enforce a slower rate of cutting-edge artificial intelligence development.
I’ve thought of these two examples over the past few days as I’ve tried to make sense of the surge in public concern about AI and existential risk.
It seems to me that climate change is looming over the AI conversation and shaping the assumptions, outlook, and behavior of many key players and observers. President Trump, of course, is reading from the old playbook and has deemed AI to be a “hoax”; Coxon, appearing on Fox News, has downplayed climate change’s existential risk as compared to runaway AI. Yet even beyond those reruns and revisions, the analogy goes deeper: Just as nuclear non-proliferation agreements structured early attempts to regulate global greenhouse emissions, climate policy is now shaping how people understand AI risk.
And not for lack of cause. In some important ways, the problems — or alleged problems, depending on your perspective on AI — resemble each other. For instance, because technology exists in a global commons, any successful AI diplomacy must involve the United States and China. And since China’s AI development currently lags the United States, American politicians must persuade China that their proposals to regulate AI are not just concealed attempts to restrain China’s development.
This dynamic has long bedeviled climate negotiations, too. Since economic growth has (until very recently) required fossil fuels, China and other middle-income countries have long feared that any global climate treaty would constrain their future economic development. The Kyoto Protocol tried to finesse this problem by splitting countries into two groups, rich and not-rich; the Paris Agreement did it by imposing no collective restrictions on fossil fuel consumption at all.
Neither approach has worked, exactly, but each offer examples, counterexamples, and tools for thought. Perhaps the Montreal Protocol, which has successfully limited global production of the pollutants destroying stratospheric ozone — and has shown how to stop the growth of a dangerous but hard-to-manufacture technology that presents near-term existential risk — is a superior model.
There is at least one big way the two risks differ. Climate change is a chemical problem that arises from the size and scale of global fossil fuel consumption. Scientists have known that the greenhouse effect is real since the early 20th century. Climate change’s physics are rudimentary enough that Exxon’s in-house scientists could predict the path of future warming with some accuracy. It is a verifiable risk.
AI’s alleged existential risks, on the other hand, emerge from a lab pushing the technological frontier too far and drilling, like Tolkien’s dwarves, too deep. AI concern relies not on empirical observations, but on a story about exponential change and runaway growth. In this way, it’s a harder risk to predict, and a harder one to accept.
Climate advocates have long wondered what would have happened if Exxon’s leaders had embraced reality and warned the public in the 1980s that global warming is real and caused by fossil fuels. Inside Climate News once called it a “road not taken.” I can’t help but wonder if we’re watching it.
The Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate by a quarter point, the central bank announced Wednesday afternoon, its first rate change since Chairman Kevin Warsh took his seat in May and its first rate hike in over three years.
The federal funds rate will now sit between 3.75% and 4%. According to projections by regional Federal Reserve presidents and members of the Board of Governors, the central bank expects to hike rates one more time this year.
In its now characteristically brief statements, the Federal Open Market Committee said that the hike “will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2 percent goal” for inflation. Inflation is currently running at 3.4% and has been above the Fed’s 2% target since 2021.
The FOMC’s (brief) statement explaining the hike pointed to “resilient” domestic spending and “robust” capital investment. It characterized the economy as “expanding at a solid pace,” albeit with “elevated” uncertainty due to “geopolitical developments.”
This combination of factors — high oil prices due to the partial shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and high investment in data centers — have helped push up yields on Treasury bonds, which helped maneuver the Federal Reserve into its rate hike. These rising Treasury yields have made raising capital more difficult for sectors besides artificial intelligence, very much including the capital-intensive renewable and clean energy industries.
Warsh attributed higher Treasury yields to “economic strength, competition for capital, and geopolitics,” in his press conference following the rate announcement. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of money throughout the economy, rose to over 5% on the news, the highest level since 2007.
Current conditions: The fast-moving Palos Fire blazed through 17 acres in Los Angeles’ La Habra Heights, injuring two • Heavy rain in São Paulo collapsed a dilapidated building, killing six • The heat index in the Mississippi Valley is topping 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Two weeks after accusing data center opponents of wanting “to end up being backwards and poor,” President Donald Trump has landed on a new defense of the artificial intelligence buildout. It’s a lot like his old one for abdicating on the federal government’s responsibility to deal with climate-changing emissions. Essentially, it boils down to: My critics are making it all up. “It’s a hoax,” Trump told Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during the five-minute call the executive put on speaker on stage at a conference Monday in Los Angeles. “The robots are not going to be taking over the world. That’s not going to happen.” He later posted on his Truth Social platform: “The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Three-quarters of Americans are now opposed to data centers in their backyards, according to Heatmap Pro’s poll from last month. But Trump has recently bucked with some populist positions on technology that have cross-partisan appeal. While law-and-order Republicans in red states are now turning against the Flock cameras that watch for petty crime, Trump defended the technology in a recent Air Force One chat with reporters. “Trump deserves more respect for his anti-slopulist instincts,” Peter Meijer, a former Republican member of Congress who voted to impeach Trump during his previous administration, wrote in a post on X.
Nvidia’s emissions, meanwhile, appear to be soaring. A new Greenpeace analysis of Nvidia’s own climate reports by the pro-renewables analyst Ketan Joshi found that emissions relating to the supply chain for chip manufacturing soared by 725% since 2020, adding nearly 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

You wouldn’t believe some of the conditions I have heard placed on owners of hydroelectric dams seeking to relicense major clean power projects. There are obvious demands from regulators for things like new infrastructure to help migrating fish pass down a river. Then there are the less obvious, such as building an amphitheater for Boy Scouts or paving new roads far from a dam or its water source. In what the trade group called a first-of-its-kind analysis, the National Hydropower Association reviewed more than 5,000 mandatory conditions across 4,819 licensing documents filed between 1980 and 2026 in 46 states. Dam owners would need to agree to the legally binding requirements, imposed by either state or federal agencies, before a final operating license could be issued. Compared to earlier licenses, hydropower plants today “carry roughly 10 times as many mandatory conditions,” the trade association wrote in its report. “To make matters worse, many conditions are unrelated to energy production and are essentially ‘wish list’ items that hydropower producers are asked to fund, ranging from road construction unrelated to the projects to building fish passage far beyond where the fish actually are (or even could be),” the organization said. Over the next decade, 348 hydropower permits representing 12 gigawatts of capacity are due for relicensing. Many of those facilities are small, and the trend recently has been for companies to simply surrender their licenses and close up shop rather than make costly renovations.
“I urge anyone who cares about reliable, affordable power to read this groundbreaking study,” Malcolm Woolf, NHA’s top executive, said in a statement. “Hydropower, a superhero of the grid and an American icon of energy production, is at great risk due to a broken regulatory framework. Relicensing an existing hydropower facility often takes decades and costs millions of dollars. If these facilities go away, so does the affordable power they produce, the good jobs they create, and the critical infrastructure and ecosystem care they provide.”
Back in May, I told you that South Korea — arguably the most competent builder of atomic power reactors in the democratic world — was “coming to America’s nuclear rescue.” Last week, we discussed the possibility of Seoul’s state-owned nuclear company building reactors in the U.S. as part of a trade pact with the Trump administration. Now we have a clearer picture of where those negotiations may be going. On Tuesday, The Korea Economic Daily reported that South Korea is seeking a roughly 15% stake in Westinghouse, the maker of America’s flagship nuclear reactor, and a seat on its board as part of any deal with Washington. The move, the newspaper noted, is designed to “turn a U.S. request for Korean capital into a strategic foothold in America’s nuclear buildouts.” Ownership by one of America’s closest East Asian allies would be nothing new for Westinghouse, which was owned in the mid 2000s by the Japanese industrial giant Toshiba. Today Westinghouse is a privately held joint venture between the publicly traded investment behemoth Brookfield Asset Management and the Canadian uranium miner Cameco, but the company filed confidential paperwork to the Securities and Exchange Commission in July as a first step toward going public on the stock market.
The market only appears to be expanding. Global nuclear capacity could more than triple by 2060, according to this week’s latest forecast from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations affiliate that oversees nuclear technologies worldwide.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Spend a few minutes scrolling through a comedy fan’s TikTok stream and you’ll find skits playing to the same memetic trope, an anthropomorphized caricature of an incompetent, mistake-prone AI agent guzzling and spilling lots of water. It’s no wonder the joke has already become hack. More than three-quarters of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about the environmental impact of AI, and half are extremely or very concerned, according to data from the latest annual poll from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. In every case, self-identified Democrats are more concerned about environmental issues than Republicans. While 40% of Democrats expressed concern over the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency, just 18% of Republicans said the same. With meat, the ration is 42% to 21%. With air travel, it's Democrats at 38% and Republicans at 17%. But interests converge slightly more on data centers, with 65% of Democrats and 42% Republicans extremely or very concerned about the environmental impacts of AI.
In theory, the late 20th century liberalization of America’s electricity markets should have put a premium on transmission companies building new arteries in the system. In practice, the high cost and grave risk of taking on dozens, sometimes droves, of landowners for right of way to build a power line that stretches hundreds of miles across multiple regional grids makes the task almost impossible, particularly in markets where a power company can’t offset the cost of new lines with other sources of revenue such as generation or power sales. A new report by the Center for Public Enterprise has concluded that “only the federal government can intervene to sew together this national macrogrid by bridging the jurisdictional divides between utilities and regions, instituting planning pipelines with access to finance and cost recovery, and fixing interconnection procedures.” As of yet, that looks unlikely beyond the increased focus on regional planning under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 1920. The rule is facing legal challenges that aren’t expected to be resolved until next year, according to Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Initiative.
When I visited Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in Massachusetts earlier this summer, I saw how much progress the company had made toward building what could be the world’s first power-producing fusion reactor, called SPARC. To work, the interior of the torus-shaped, doughnut-like reactor needs to be very cold so magnets can pick up on the contrast in temperatures with the extremely hot plasma fusing together. That’s where the cryogenics come in. The facility’s cryogenics equipment is now up and running, the company said on Wednesday, marking yet another milestone toward next year’s anticipated start up. “That temperature, a few degrees above absolute zero, is what’ll enable our magnets to bottle up a superhot cloud of charged particles called a plasma so fusion can occur,” Adam Weiner, the director of cryogenics at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, said in a statement.