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:
Your EV options just got a lot smaller — for now, anyway.

Once upon a time, if you wanted to buy an electrified vehicle, you could qualify for a tax credit of up to $7,500 — provided that particular car manufacturer hadn’t yet exceeded the number of eligible vehicles it could sell with that incentive attached.
Sounds a bit complex, right? Today, EV buyers are probably wishing things were that simple.
The finalized EV and plug-in hybrid tax incentive rules go into effect this week. And while they do manage to modernize and refine the old program — including getting rid of the old limit on how many cars were eligible — they also significantly cut down on the number of EVs and PHEVs available for a tax break at this time.
The new rules have been in the works since late last year, but it wasn’t until this week that stipulations around battery sourcing and so-called “critical minerals” took effect as well. As The Verge pointed out Monday, only six vehicles currently on the market (that qualifier is important) are eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit. Others will only be allowed half of that. Many others, including whole brands of automakers, will be left out in the cold entirely.
In short, today’s news is great for General Motors, Ford, or Tesla. It’s tough luck for just about every other car company operating in the EV and PHEV space, like Nissan, Rivian, BMW, or Volkswagen.
The new rules, effective April 18, 2023, stipulate that an EV or PHEV (non-plug-in hybrids sadly don’t qualify at all) only gets tax incentives if its final assembly is in North America; its battery is more than 50% made in North America; and at least 40% of the battery’s “critical minerals” come from the U.S. or one of its free-trade partners. There are essentially two credits involved and each is worth $3,750: one for the car itself and one for the battery. You can see a full list at the EPA’s FuelEconomy.gov website.
The major silver lining in this situation is that customers can still qualify for a full $7,500 tax credit if they lease an EV or PHEV, as long as their dealership decides to pass on the savings.
Let’s break this down.
Come at the king, you best not miss. The worldwide leader in EV production fares very well under the new rules. Granted, the Model S and Model X are too expensive to qualify for any tax breaks, but we knew that going in.
Instead, Tesla’s mainstream, volume-selling cars — the Model 3 and Model Y — keep their full $7,500 tax credits. The only one with batteries that don’t meet the new mineral-sourcing requirement is the Model 3 Standard Range Rear-Wheel-Drive; in other words, the base Model 3.
But between the tax incentives, Elon Musk’s tendency to slash prices on a whim, and the company’s still-unmatched ability to deliver EVs at scale, the rules should keep Tesla’s lead over other automakers pretty comfortable for some time.
Tesla still made up 64 percent of the U.S. EV market last year, and nearly half of its registrations were for the Model Y crossover. In other words, as The Washington Post’s Shannon Osaka pointed out today, the new tax credits are more limited but they do incentivize the cars that make up most of the market.
GM is quick to say that “qualifying customers will have access to the full $7,500 credit across [its] entire EV fleet,” but it’s key to remember that most of the cars on its list are currently not for sale. And others are having a hard time getting there.
For example, the Chevrolet Bolt and Bolt EUV still qualify for the full credits. These two EVs, which have a range of about 250 miles, are both screaming deals — even more so with the full credits. But they’re getting a bit old and do not offer the same fast-charging options that many newer competitors do. It’s not a dealbreaker weakness for the Bolt, but it is arguably the car’s biggest drawback.
The Cadillac Lyriq luxury crossover also qualifies for the full break. But GM has struggled with production for that vehicle. The Lyriq went on sale last year, but GM only made about 8,000 of them in all of 2022, much to the chagrin of reservation-holders and Cadillac’s dealers. To date, they’re seldom seen on roads outside of Detroit. (The GMC Hummer EV is too expensive to qualify for tax credits under the new rules, but it’s also had a lot of production problems to date.)
The rest of the cars on GM’s list — the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Blazer EV and Silverado EV — also aren’t even on sale yet. And given GM’s known troubles ramping up EV output, it’s fair to ask when prospective EV buyers will really be able to take advantage of the new rules here.
Ford’s eligible offerings include the electric Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and E-Transit van, as well as the plug-in hybrid Escape. Those cars’ fancier cousins, the Lincoln Aviator and Corsair, also qualify for the hybrid tax credit, which is rated at $3,750.
The survival of the credit is great news for buyers of the F-150 Lightning, which is already America’s best-selling electric truck (and the only one to achieve anything close to real mass production.) Unfortunately, the popular Mustang Mach-E only qualifies for half the credit it used to because its batteries don’t meet the sourcing requirements.
Eventually, Ford will be more than likely able to equip the electric Mustang with compliant batteries. It’s been on the market for a few years now, and so the way it’s designed and built pre-dates these new rules. But it’s still a bit of a bummer for anyone aiming to buy this fast electric crossover.
When the EPA’s list was first unveiled, the biggest loser seemed to be Volkswagen. The German automaker has ambitious all-electric plans and mass-adoption hopes for its ID.4 electric crossover, yet none of its cars initially made the cut. At the time a VW spokesperson said the company was “fairly optimistic" that the ID.4 would qualify for the tax credit once VW received documentation from a supplier. That optimism was not misplaced. On Wednesday, the ID.4 was added to the EPA’s list and made eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit.
Other European automakers who build PHEVs and EVs in North America now find themselves out in the cold, since their batteries may not meet the mineral-sourcing requirements at all anymore.
The cars losing their tax credits entirely include the Audi Q5 TFSI e hybrid; the BMW 330e, and X5 xDrive45e hybrids; and the Volvo S60 hybrids. Being locally built isn’t enough anymore under the new rules, and that certainly represents a setback for these automakers.
At least for now. BMW is planning a $1.2 billion battery factory in South Carolina.
This ambitious electric truck startup also loses its tax incentive qualifications entirely under the new rules. Rivian’s R1T truck and R1S SUV are both built in America, but its Samsung SDI-sourced batteries are not. Last year, the two companies abandoned plans to build a U.S. battery factory together after being unable to come to terms on the deal.
Nissan got hit especially hard on this one. The U.S.-built Leaf won’t meet the battery requirements for the new rules, and the Japan-built Ariya crossover — the star of a big marketing push featuring actor Brie Larson – also won’t be eligible. That’s a tough blow for a brand that’s trying to regain the early lead it once had in the EV space.
At the same time, Nissan is another company with a huge North American factory presence and it will expand that to meet the new tax credit demands. Nissan has said it hopes to sell six EVs in America by 2026, many of them built in Mississippi.
The rules going into effect this week don’t change anything for South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Group. It’s been known for a while that its Korean-built EVs wouldn’t qualify for any tax incentives, and now that’s official. That means critically acclaimed cars like the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 lose a big advantage over some competitors.
Even Genesis, which now produces an all-electric version of its Genesis GV70 crossover in Alabama, loses out this time. It’s not clear why the Electfied GV70 doesn’t qualify; we will update this story as we learn more.
But the new EV tax credit rules are a big blow for Hyundai, which is undertaking a major EV push to challenge Tesla on the world stage and thought it had worked out a deal with President Biden. Long-term, the answer will be considerably more American EV production, but that will take time. For now, Hyundai is banking on people getting a deal by leasing these EVs instead.
The long-term goal of the new rules is to have a robust EV battery manufacturing infrastructure right here in North America so that our zero-emission future doesn’t depend so much on China. New factories are springing up left and right in the U.S. as automakers and suppliers alike pour billions into future battery power.
But those won’t go online overnight; very much the opposite. Ford’s own $3.5 billion battery plant won’t be up and running until 2026. In the immediate term, these rules so limit eligibility that they could hinder wider EV and PHEV adoption at a crucial time.
All of it begs the question: What is the bigger goal of the IRA’s car-related rules: To get emissions down and spur EV adoption as quickly as possible, or to ramp up a domestic battery manufacturing ecosystem?
If it’s the former, then these new tax credit rules are a bit of a whiff. They’re so limiting they run the risk of keeping people out of electrified vehicles for cost reasons. The average price of an EV is about $60,000 before any incentives, which is greater than the also-high $45,000 average price for most internal combustion new cars.
Cost could slow down EV acceptance right when the public charging infrastructure is finally getting a much-needed shot in the arm of its own.
To be clear, the EVs are coming. Just about every automaker on this list has announced aggressive expansion plans for locally made EVs, batteries, or both. Most automakers are global entities and have to keep an eye on the long game, which seems to be battery-centric thanks to regulations in Europe and China.
Still, this a very tough, specific set of rules to meet — and it means EV growth might just accelerate a little less quickly than it could have.
This article was updated on April 19 at 1:31pm ET after the Volkswagen ID.4 was included on the EPA’s list.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It’s either reassure investors now or reassure voters later.
Investor-owned utilities are a funny type of company. On the one hand, they answer to their shareholders, who expect growing returns and steady dividends. But those returns are the outcome of an explicitly political process — negotiations with state regulators who approve the utilities’ requests to raise rates and to make investments, on which utilities earn a rate of return that also must be approved by regulators.
Utilities have been requesting a lot of rate increases — some $31 billion in 2025, according to the energy policy group PowerLines, more than double the amount requested the year before. At the same time, those rate increases have helped push electricity prices up over 6% in the last year, while overall prices rose just 2.4%.
Unsurprisingly, people have noticed, and unsurprisingly, politicians have responded. (After all, voters are most likely to blame electric utilities and state governments for rising electricity prices, Heatmap polling has found.) Democrat Mikie Sherrill, for instance, won the New Jersey governorship on the back of her proposal to freeze rates in the state, which has seen some of the country’s largest rate increases.
This puts utilities in an awkward position. They need to boast about earnings growth to their shareholders while also convincing Wall Street that they can avoid becoming punching bags in state capitols.
Make no mistake, the past year has been good for these companies and their shareholders. Utilities in the S&P 500 outperformed the market as a whole, and had largely good news to tell investors in the past few weeks as they reported their fourth quarter and full-year earnings. Still, many utility executives spent quite a bit of time on their most recent earnings calls talking about how committed they are to affordability.
When Exelon — which owns several utilities in PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest grid and ground zero for upset over the influx data centers and rising rates — trumpeted its growing rate base, CEO Calvin Butler argued that this “steady performance is a direct result of a continued focus on affordability.”
But, a Wells Fargo analyst cautioned, there is a growing number of “affordability things out there,” as they put it, “whether you are looking at Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware.” To name just one, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro said in a speech earlier this month that investor-owned utilities “make billions of dollars every year … with too little public accountability or transparency.” Pennsylvania’s Exelon-owned utility, PECO, won approval at the end of 2024 to hike rates by 10%.
When asked specifically about its regulatory strategy in Pennsylvania and when it intended to file a new rate case, Butler said that, “with affordability front and center in all of our jurisdictions, we lean into that first,” but cautioned that “we also recognize that we have to maintain a reliable and resilient grid.” In other words, Exelon knows that it’s under the microscope from the public.
Butler went on to neatly lay out the dilemma for utilities: “Everything centers on affordability and maintaining a reliable system,” he said. Or to put it slightly differently: Rate increases are justified by bolstering reliability, but they’re often opposed by the public because of how they impact affordability.
Of the large investor-owned utilities, it was probably Duke Energy, which owns electrical utilities in the Carolinas, Florida, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, that had to most carefully navigate the politics of higher rates, assuring Wall Street over and over how committed it was to affordability. “We will never waver on our commitment to value and affordability,” Duke chief executive Harry Sideris said on the company’s February 10 earnings call.
In November, Duke requested a $1.7 billion revenue increase over the course of 2027 and 2028 for two North Carolina utilities, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress — a 15% hike. The typical residential customer Duke Energy Carolinas customer would see $17.22 added onto their monthly bill in 2027, while Duke Energy Progress ratepayers would be responsible for $23.11 more, with smaller increases in 2028.
These rate cases come “amid acute affordability scrutiny, making regulatory outcomes the decisive variable for the earnings trajectory,” Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst at Jefferies, wrote in a note to clients. In other words, in order to continue to grow earnings, Duke needs to convince regulators and a skeptical public that the rate increases are necessary.
“Our customers remain our top priority, and we will never waver on our commitment to value and affordability,” Sideris told investors. “We continue to challenge ourselves to find new ways to deliver affordable energy for our customers.”
All in all, “affordability” and “affordable” came up 15 times on the call. A year earlier, they came up just three times.
When asked by a Jefferies analyst about how Duke could hit its forecasted earnings growth through 2029, Sideris zeroed in on the regulatory side: “We are very confident in our regulatory outcomes,” he said.
At the same time, Duke told investors that it planned to increase its five-year capital spending plan to $103 billion — “the largest fully regulated capital plan in the industry,” Sideris said.
As far as utilities are concerned, with their multiyear planning and spending cycles, we are only at the beginning of the affordability story.
“The 2026 utility narrative is shifting from ‘capex growth at all costs’ to ‘capex growth with a customer permission slip,’” Dumoulin-Smith wrote in a separate note on Thursday. “We believe it is no longer enough for utilities to say they care about affordability; regulators and investors are demanding proof of proactive behavior.”
If they can’t come up with answers that satisfy their investors, ultimately they’ll have to answer to the voters. Last fall, two Republican utility regulators in Georgia lost their reelection bids by huge margins thanks in part to a backlash over years of rate increases they’d approved.
“Especially as the November 2026 elections approach, utilities that fail to demonstrate concrete mitigants face political and reputational risk and may warrant a credibility discount in valuations, in our view,” Dumoulin wrote.
At the same time, utilities are dealing with increased demand for electricity, which almost necessarily means making more investments to better serve that new load, which can in the short turn translate to higher prices. While large technology companies and the White House are making public commitments to shield existing customers from higher costs, utility rates are determined in rate cases, not in press releases.
“As the issue of rising utility bills has become a greater economic and political concern, investors are paying attention,” Charles Hua, the founder and executive director of PowerLines, told me. “Rising utility bills are impacting the investor landscape just as they have reshaped the political landscape.”
Plus more of the week’s top fights in data centers and clean energy.
1. Osage County, Kansas – A wind project years in the making is dead — finally.
2. Franklin County, Missouri – Hundreds of Franklin County residents showed up to a public meeting this week to hear about a $16 billion data center proposed in Pacific, Missouri, only for the city’s planning commission to announce that the issue had been tabled because the developer still hadn’t finalized its funding agreement.
3. Hood County, Texas – Officials in this Texas County voted for the second time this month to reject a moratorium on data centers, citing the risk of litigation.
4. Nantucket County, Massachusetts – On the bright side, one of the nation’s most beleaguered wind projects appears ready to be completed any day now.
Talking with Climate Power senior advisor Jesse Lee.
For this week's Q&A I hopped on the phone with Jesse Lee, a senior advisor at the strategic communications organization Climate Power. Last week, his team released new polling showing that while voters oppose the construction of data centers powered by fossil fuels by a 16-point margin, that flips to a 25-point margin of support when the hypothetical data centers are powered by renewable energy sources instead.
I was eager to speak with Lee because of Heatmap’s own polling on this issue, as well as President Trump’s State of the Union this week, in which he pitched Americans on his negotiations with tech companies to provide their own power for data centers. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
What does your research and polling show when it comes to the tension between data centers, renewable energy development, and affordability?
The huge spike in utility bills under Trump has shaken up how people perceive clean energy and data centers. But it’s gone in two separate directions. They see data centers as a cause of high utility prices, one that’s either already taken effect or is coming to town when a new data center is being built. At the same time, we’ve seen rising support for clean energy.
As we’ve seen in our own polling, nobody is coming out looking golden with the public amidst these utility bill hikes — not Republicans, not Democrats, and certainly not oil and gas executives or data center developers. But clean energy comes out positive; it’s viewed as part of the solution here. And we’ve seen that even in recent MAGA polls — Kellyanne Conway had one; Fabrizio, Lee & Associates had one; and both showed positive support for large-scale solar even among Republicans and MAGA voters. And it’s way high once it’s established that they’d be built here in America.
A year or two ago, if you went to a town hall about a new potential solar project along the highway, it was fertile ground for astroturf folks to come in and spread flies around. There wasn’t much on the other side — maybe there was some talk about local jobs, but unemployment was really low, so it didn’t feel super salient. Now there’s an energy affordability crisis; utility bills had been stable for 20 years, but suddenly they’re not. And I think if you go to the town hall and there’s one person spewing political talking points that they've been fed, and then there’s somebody who says, “Hey, man, my utility bills are out of control, and we have to do something about it,” that’s the person who’s going to win out.
The polling you’ve released shows that 52% of people oppose data center construction altogether, but that there’s more limited local awareness: Only 45% have heard about data center construction in their own communities. What’s happening here?
There’s been a fair amount of coverage of [data center construction] in the press, but it’s definitely been playing catch-up with the electric energy the story has on social media. I think many in the press are not even aware of the fiasco in Memphis over Elon Musk’s natural gas plant. But people have seen the visuals. I mean, imagine a little farmhouse that somebody bought, and there’s a giant, 5-mile-long building full of computers next to it. It’s got an almost dystopian feel to it. And then you hear that the building is using more electricity than New York City.
The big takeaway of the poll for me is that coal and natural gas are an anchor on any data center project, and reinforce the worst fears about it. What you see is that when you attach clean energy [to a data center project], it actually brings them above the majority of support. It’s not just paranoia: We are seeing the effects on utility rates and on air pollution — there was a big study just two days ago on the effects of air pollution from data centers. This is something that people in rural, urban, or suburban communities are hearing about.
Do you see a difference in your polling between natural gas-powered and coal-powered data centers? In our own research, coal is incredibly unpopular, but voters seem more positive about natural gas. I wonder if that narrows the gap.
I think if you polled them individually, you would see some distinction there. But again, things like the Elon Musk fiasco in Memphis have circulated, and people are aware of the sheer volume of power being demanded. Coal is about the dirtiest possible way you can do it. But if it’s natural gas, and it’s next door all the time just to power these computers — that’s not going to be welcome to people.
I'm sure if you disentangle it, you’d see some distinction, but I also think it might not be that much. I’ll put it this way: If you look at the default opposition to data centers coming to town, it’s not actually that different from just the coal and gas numbers. Coal and gas reinforce the default opposition. The big difference is when you have clean energy — that bumps it up a lot. But if you say, “It’s a data center, but what if it were powered by natural gas?” I don’t think that would get anybody excited or change their opinion in a positive way.
Transparency with local communities is key when it comes to questions of renewable buildout, affordability, and powering data centers. What is the message you want to leave people with about Climate Power’s research in this area?
Contrary to this dystopian vision of power, people do have control over their own destinies here. If people speak out and demand that data centers be powered by clean energy, they can get those data centers to commit to it. In the end, there’s going to be a squeeze, and something is going to have to give in terms of Trump having his foot on the back of clean energy — I think something will give.
Demand transparency in terms of what kind of pollution to expect. Demand transparency in terms of what kind of power there’s going to be, and if it’s not going to be clean energy, people are understandably going to oppose it and make their voices heard.