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:
One of Volkswagen’s most iconic cars has a post-gasoline future.
Porsche salespeople, college girls, horsepower-obsessed tuners, lawyers, journalists, avowed street racers, moms and dads, and wealthy businesspeople — all are folks I’ve met in my travels who have owned Volkswagen Golf GTIs. It’s rare to see such a radically diverse group of car owners. But the GTI has spent nearly 50 years delivering driving joy in a surprisingly affordable and practical package, so its appeal has stretched far and wide.
Now, this automotive icon will have a future beyond gasoline as well, and that’s worth getting excited about.
This weekend at the IAA Mobility Show in Munich, Volkswagen debuted the ID.GTI Concept: essentially a preview of an all-electric GTI to come soon. While “concept cars” in the automotive world can often represent wild ideas or meager previews of far-flung things car companies might want to do, VW has confirmed the ID.GTI will go into production in a few years. And like the gasoline-powered GTI’s relationship to the Golf, the electric ID.GTI is essentially a faster, better-handling, better-equipped version of the Volkswagen ID.2all unveiled a few months ago. For fans of exciting cars that don’t command six-figure price tags, it’s hard to overstate what a big deal an electric GTI would be.
An image of the ID.GTI Concept.Courtesy of Volkswagen
It’s also hard to overstate the importance of the GTI to the automotive landscape. If you want something fun to drive, but need some actual trunk space or have to get the kids to school on time, the so-called “hot hatchback” — essentially a practical, roomy economy car given a more powerful engine and other enhancements — is a great way to go. And the GTI is the O.G. of the hot hatch world, the car that started it all. Launched in 1976 as a powered-up version of the humble Golf, the GTI was an immediate hit that helped VW move past the ancient Beetle and Microbus and into a modern, safer and more efficient era of driving.
Even as the GTI launched the hot hatch segment and inspired a raft of competitors from nearly every car company, over the decades it has consistently racked up awards from motoring journalists, built up a huge community of loyal fans, and became a car-modifying scene unto itself. At almost any given car show, you’ll see a GTI (or even just a Golf) that’s been painted wild colors, covered in stickers, lowered, fitted with outrageous wheels, received an unhinged engine transplant, or all of the above; people do crazy stuff to these cars.
Or they just drive them to the office and have a spirited drive on the weekends. That’s the magic of the GTI; it’s an “all of the above” option in ways that cars like the Mazda Miata and Chevrolet Camaro can’t match.
All the while, the GTI has kept its relatively humble price tag — the current one starts at a very reasonable $30,530 — and its focus on fuel economy. It’s always offered thrills with a high-tech four-cylinder engine (and briefly, an unusually small V6 option), eschewing the huge gas-guzzling motors typical of other performance cars.
But times are changing. Good fuel economy doesn’t cut it anymore. Emissions rules are getting tougher globally as the end of internal combustion can be seen on the horizon. Partially in penance for its diesel-cheating sins, VW is going all-electric in the coming years. Plus, attitudes are changing, too; this year, the Austrian town that for decades hosted a massive GTI meetup (think a giant music festival, but for modified Volkswagens) canceled the event out of environmental concerns. VW had to save the day by moving it to its headquarters in Wolfsburg.
The ID.GTI might be a far more welcome sight instead. Though no specifics around power (or range) have been released yet, as an electric car the ID.GTI will almost certainly be the quickest GTI ever. VW says it can even electronically emulate the driving feel and noises of the vintage ones. In other words, if you owned a GTI in the ‘80s or 2000s, this one can sound just like it. The concept keeps a number of must-haves from past GTIs, too, like the tartan plaid seats, red trim on the grille and the “Golf ball” gear shifter — here, that’s a control module that lets you adjust how the car drives.
The ID.GTI likely won’t go on sale until 2027, Car and Driver predicts. But Americans may have reasons to mark their calendars whenever we get an official date. Earlier this year, Volkswagen gave a hard “no” when asked if the ID.2all would ever come to our shores. You can thank the U.S. car market being overwhelmingly dominated by large trucks and SUVs for that.
But will the ID.GTI come to America? “The answer is … we’re looking into it,” a VW spokesperson told me. That fits with past precedent. The base Golf was discontinued for America a few years ago, but the GTI (and its more powerful, more expensive big brother the Golf R) remains on sale here. That’s because there’s still a market for VW’s fun hot hatches here; I’d wager the GTI has eclipsed the Golf itself in America in terms of popularity and prominence.
I believe there’s absolutely a market for a fun, affordable electric hot hatch in America too, especially if VW can find ways to get battery and production costs down over the next few years. Look at the great sales year the Tesla Model 3 is having; same with the soon-to-be-discontinued (and then revived) Chevrolet Bolt, or the considerable hype around the ultra-compact Volvo EX30. Americans would drive cheap EVs if we had the chance, and if we want to lower emissions across the board, we can’t count on $60,000 SUVs to do it. There is no reason to believe that an electric GTI couldn’t be a hit just like the original one was, even if its Golf sibling doesn’t make it here.
But for me, there’s an even deeper appeal to the ID.GTI. I try to draw a line between car culture — traffic-clogged cities, long commutes, no public transit, the prioritization of driving over biking and walking — and car enthusiast culture. The latter is something that, while far from perfect, is a force that drives diverse communities, creates lasting bonds and is filled with people eager to help each other out. I don’t want to see car enthusiast culture die with gasoline; rather, I’d like to see gearheads lead the charge for a cleaner, better, smarter future.
And if the Volkswagen GTI — the ride of choice for everyday people who want occasional backroad fun and the “Yes, this should have 1,000 horsepower and sit just three inches off the ground” crowd alike — can help make that happen, it deserves an electric future.
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.