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:
Among other actions, he overturned an electric vehicle mandate that, well, doesn’t exist.
Ding dong, the electric vehicle “mandate” is dead.
President Donald Trump fulfilled his longtime campaign promise on Monday by functionally ending former President Joe Biden’s tailpipe emissions standards, which had aimed to “accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.”
As part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, signed Monday night in the Oval Office, Trump specifically demanded the elimination of “the electric vehicle mandate,” ordered a “level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles,” and directed the termination of “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,” as well as the elimination of “unfair subsidies … that favor EVs.”
Though the finer details of how this will be implemented aren’t clear in the executive order, there has never been an actual electric vehicle mandate. The rules under Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency would have required a gradual reduction in fleetwide average carbon emissions by up to 56% by 2032. To meet that goal, electric vehicles would have needed to make up 35% to 56% of new car sales by 2032, up from 8% in 2024. According to the Biden administration, the rule would have cut more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions through 2055, or “roughly equal to four times the emissions of the entire transportation sector in 2021.”
Trump’s executive order also appeared to target the Biden administration’s fuel economy standards. Back in June, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a rule that raised the fleetwide average fuel economy of passenger cars for model years 2027 through 2031 by 2% each year — that is, to 47 miles per gallon in 2026 and to 50.4 miles per gallon in 2031. (The current average is around 39.1 miles per gallon.)
Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the rules, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE Standards, arguing they “effectively mandate EVs while at the same time forcing the internal combustion engine out of the market.” The GOP has insisted that the CAFE Standards should be “market-driven” rather than “limit availability of and access to vehicle and fuel options.” Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s playbook for the Trump administration, called for a fuel efficiency standard of 35 mpg.
CAFE Standards have long been a political football between administrations; Trump previously rolled back President Barack Obama’s standards, while Biden’s NHTSA brought even stricter rules.
Monday’s executive order additionally appeared to target the EPA’s waiver for California to set its own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act in its language targeting “state emission waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.” Trump previously revoked California’s right to include greenhouse gases in its emissions considerations and barred other states from adopting its criteria. Biden reversed that decision in March 2022, on the grounds that the Trump administration’s withdrawal was based on a flawed interpretation of the Clean Air Act. Since then, California released its Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which 11 other states have adopted and requires all new cars sold by 2035 to be zero-emission.
It had been no secret that the California waiver would be a target of the incoming Trump administration, despite the program being a secret profit center for Tesla and supported by Elon Musk. California has also quietly been working to Trump-proof its standards, reaching an agreement recently with Stellantis (the parent automaker of Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram) to comply voluntarily with its electrification mandates through 2030. (As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has noted, the nationwide EPA rules for tailpipe emission reductions “follow a different model than the California standards,” and are not an electric vehicle mandate.)
By directing the EPA to revoke the California waiver, Trump has started a process that could lead to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Justices declined to consider whether or not California has the right to set its own aggressive tailpipe standards, but if Trump indeed attempts to rescind the waiver, it will likely face further legal challenges.
Taken together, the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order seems designed to deliver on Trump’s frequent campaign attacks on EVs on the 2024 campaign trail, where he argued that “under Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, 40% of all U.S. auto jobs will disappear.” Heatmap’s own investigation found little evidence to suggest that making electric vehicles will result in fewer jobs. Trump’s tune on EVs had changed in recent months, however, as he grew closer to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
It’s true, also, that executive orders are not the automatic rule of law; many of the policies will face time-consuming new rulemaking processes or legal challenges. More clarity about what the “Unleashing American Energy” order does precisely, and how it will be implemented, will become clear in the weeks and months ahead.
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 worst case scenario for the wind industry is here.
President Donald Trump has ordered the federal government to stop all permits for wind energy projects.
Trump on Monday evening issued a sweeping executive order that the government “shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” pending what the order describes as a “comprehensive assessment” of the industry’s myriad impacts on the economy, environment and other factors.
This affects all offshore wind development in the U.S., because all of that takes place in the Outer Continental Shelf, an ocean expanse under federal control that is leased for all kinds of energy production.
It also impacts wind projects on federal lands. Although the extent of the impact to onshore wind is unclear because some wind projects are on state lands, project developers often must get approvals under federal environmental and species protection laws, so an end to permits will be quite painful for the sector.
The new order also withdrew all waters in the Outer Continental Shelf from access to wind leasing and launched a new Interior Department review of existing wind energy leases that will identify “any legal basis” for termination or amendment based on “ecological, economic, and environmental necessity.” This opens the door to offshore wind developers potentially losing their leases.
Additionally, the order specifically bans wind energy development at the site sought after for the Lava Ridge wind project in Idaho. Lava Ridge has been contentious because of its vicinity to a historic internment camp where Japanese Americans were forced to live during World War II. The project was fully permitted days before the end of Biden’s term. But in spite of those approvals, critics of the project close to the project insisted Trump would act on his own to kill it.
The order’s provisions are similar to a request we reported on last week that anti-offshore wind advocates transmitted to the Trump transition team, although it’s clear the draft didn’t wind up in the final version.
In addition, the order asks for a separate study to assess the “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills” to determine whether any wind turbines — which the order calls “windmills” — should be removed. This study will be conducted by the Interior Department, the Energy Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
President Trump signed nine binders of executive orders in front of an arena full of supporters on Monday night, with actions ranging from a regulatory freeze to requiring all federal workers to return to the office full-time. While the full implications of Trump’s Day One actions for energy and climate are still unfolding, one of the most consequential executive orders so far — a sweeping rollback of 80 of former President Joe Biden’s executive orders — quietly paved the way for the return of Schedule F. He later formally reinstated Schedule F during a signing in the White House.
Trump first signed an executive order creating the new employment category in October 2020, though Biden reversed it shortly after taking office via Executive Order 14003 — Protecting the Federal Workforce. While Trump didn’t have much time to implement the policy last time around, he revoked Executive Order 14003 in his omnibus executive order targeting Biden’s policies just hours into his second shot at the presidency. The move cued up his formal reinstatement of Schedule F Monday evening, which converts at least 50,000 career civil servants to “at-will” political employees. “Most of those bureaucrats are being fired,” Trump boasted during a speech at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., ahead of the signing on Monday night. “They’re gone. Should be all of them but some sneak through; we have to live with a couple, I guess.”
As I’ve written before, the reclassification is designed to “make it easier to replace ‘rogue’ or ‘woke’ civil servants and would-be whistleblowers, a.k.a. ‘the deep state,’ with party-line faithful.” The Trump administration has characterized it as giving him “full control of the government,” with the Schedule F-specific Executive Order issued under the title “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” Russ Vought, Trump’s controversial pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget and the mind behind Schedule F, has further said that it is the aim of the policy to give a “whole-of-government unwinding” to the “climate fanaticism” of the Biden years.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
The most concerning part of the Schedule F policy is the anticipated loss of institutional knowledge. “What we’re going to end up with is an executive branch that’s just uninformed,” Daniel Farber, the director of the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, previously told me. Climate-related experts, in particular, could face replacement by “spoils system” hires.
Democratic Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey drilled Vought on Schedule F during the OMB nominee’s confirmation hearing last week, during which Vought insisted the goal of the policy “was not to fire anyone” but rather to ensure federal employees “do a good job or they may not be in those positions for longer.” He additionally told Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal that he did not believe it would be unconstitutional for Trump to impound funds appropriated by Congress — including, potentially, unspent funds in the Inflation Reduction Act or the CHIPS for America Act.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Trump’s signing of an executive order reinstating Schedule F.
This time, it’ll happen more quickly, though still not right away.
In a completely unsurprising redux of President Donald Trump’s first term, the new/old U.S. president has officially notified the United Nations of America’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, which went into effect in 2016, it takes a full year for withdrawal to become official. But Trump will almost certainly henceforth act as if the U.S. is no longer bound by the treaty, which has been adopted by nearly every other nation on Earth, in an effort to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
“I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris Climate Accord rip-off,” Trump told the crowd at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., before signing a list of executive orders. “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” he said. Trump has previously stated that he thinks it is unfair that less developed nations such as China are not required to peak their emissions for a number of years, while the U.S. is expected to continue decreasing its own.
This year, parties to the agreement are required to submit national climate action plans — or “nationally determined contributions” in the parlance of the treaty — to the United Nations, detailing how they’ll further reduce emissions and adapt to global warming. These updated plans are mandated every five years, though Trump failed to submit one in 2020. The Biden administration submitted a plan last month, in advance of Trump’s inauguration, which includes a goal of cutting emissions by 61% to 66% below 2005 levels by 2035. It’s safe to assume Trump will not abide by this. Once it leaves the Paris Agreement, the U.S. will also no longer have to submit yearly emissions reports or provide as much money to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
So what will the fallout be? After all, America is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind China. But logistically and legally, leaving the Paris Agreement is more symbolic than anything. Beyond the more nebulous — but very real — loss of international leadership on climate issues, there’s no tangible repercussions for exiting the agreement. Nor, as many party nations consistently demonstrate, any legal recourse for staying in while failing to meet targets or set sufficient goals.
As I reported in November, so long as the U.S. retains its membership in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. can still attend the annual UN climate conference, a.k.a. COP, where all negotiations and decisions related to the Paris Agreement happen. But for all Paris-related meetings (which comprise much of the conference), the U.S. would have to attend as an “observer” with no decision-making power, the same category as lobbyists.
That’s actually never happened before. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. technically could (and definitely did) continue to play a role in negotiations. The Paris Agreement stipulated that no nation could officially announce its exit for three years after implementation, and, because it still took a year for withdrawal to become official, for every COP during Trump 1.0, the U.S. remained a party to Paris. While Trump’s COP delegations were smaller and less politically prominent than either Obama’s or Biden’s, U.S. representatives continued to show up and advocate for domestic interests. Since COP30 will happen in mid-November of this year, COP31 in 2026 will be the first climate conference where the U.S. will truly learn what it’s like to sit on the sidelines.
Making a more drastic break with the United Nation’s overall climate efforts by leaving the UNFCCC, which convenes the annual climate conference, is theoretically also an option. But leaving the framework convention would likely be a much more complex and arduous process than leaving Paris. While Trump has yet to make a statement indicating his intentions in this regard, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 recommends it.
“We’re going to save over a trillion dollars by withdrawing from that treaty,” Trump told the crowd regarding the Paris Agreement, before returning to the Oval Office to sign a number of additional executive orders. As my colleague Jeva Lange explained, the math behind that figure comes from a study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting, which later released a statement saying that the administration “selectively used results” from its study, and that “NERA’s study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris Agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the signing of the executive order, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements."