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.
Current conditions: Bosnia’s capital of Sarajevo is blanketed in a layer of toxic smog • Temperatures in Perth, in Western Australia, could hit 106 degrees Fahrenheit this weekend • It is cloudy in Washington, D.C., where lawmakers are scrambling to prevent a government shutdown.
The weather has gotten so weird that the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is holding internal talks about how to adjust its models to produce more accurate forecasts, the Financial Timesreported. Current models are based on temperature swings observed over one part of the Pacific Ocean that have for years correlated consistently with specific weather phenomena across the globe, but climate change seems to be disrupting that cause and effect pattern, making it harder to predict things like La Niña and El Niño. Many forecasters had expected La Niña to appear by now and help cool things down, but that has yet to happen. “It’s concerning when this region we’ve studied and written all these papers on is not related to all the impacts you’d see with [La Niña],” NOAA’s Michelle L’Heureux told the FT. “That’s when you start going ‘uh-oh’ there may be an issue here we need to resolve.”
There is quite a lot of news coming out of the Department of Energy as the year (and the Biden administration) comes to an end. A few recent updates:
Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, does not expect to meet its 2025 or 2030 emissions targets, and is putting the blame on policy, infrastructure, and technology limitations. The company previously pledged to cut its emissions by 35% by next year, and 65% by the end of the decade. Emissions in 2023 were up 4% year-over-year.
Walmart
“While we continue to work toward our aspirational target of zero operational emissions by 2040, progress will not be linear … and depends not only on our own initiatives but also on factors beyond our control,” Walmart’s statement said. “These factors include energy policy and infrastructure in Walmart markets around the world, availability of more cost-effective low-GWP refrigeration and HVAC solutions, and timely emergence of cost-effective technologies for low-carbon heavy tractor transportation (which does not appear likely until the 2030s).”
BlackRock yesterday said it is writing down the value of its Global Renewable Power Fund III following the failure of Northvolt and SolarZero, two companies the fund had invested in. Its net internal rate of return was -0.3% at the end of the third quarter, way down from 11.5% in the second quarter, according toBloomberg. Sectors like EV charging, transmission, and renewable energy generation and storage have been “particularly challenged,” executives said, and some other renewables companies in the portfolio have yet to get in the black, meaning their valuations may be “more subjective and sensitive to evolving dynamics in the industry.”
Flies may be more vulnerable to climate change than bees are, according to a new study published in the Journal of Melittology. The fly haters among us might shrug at the finding, but the researchers insist flies are essential pollinators that help bolster ecosystem biodiversity and agriculture. “It’s time we gave flies some more recognition for their role as pollinators,” said lead author Margarita López-Uribe, who is the Lorenzo Langstroth Early Career Associate Professor of Entomology at Penn State. The study found bees can tolerate higher temperatures than flies, so flies are at greater risk of decline as global temperatures rise. “In alpine and subarctic environments, flies are the primary pollinator,” López-Uribe said. “This study shows us that we have entire regions that could lose their primary pollinator as the climate warms, which could be catastrophic for those ecosystems.”
“No one goes to the movies because they want to be scolded.” –Heatmap’s Jeva Lange writes about the challenges facing climate cinema, and why 2024 might be the year the climate movie grew up.
Whether you agree probably depends on how you define “climate movie” to begin with.
Climate change is the greatest story of our time — but our time doesn’t seem to invent many great stories about climate change. Maybe it’s due to the enormity and urgency of the subject matter: Climate is “important,” and therefore conscripted to the humorless realms of journalism and documentary. Or maybe it’s because of a misunderstanding on the part of producers and storytellers, rooted in an outdated belief that climate change still needs to be explained to an audience, when in reality they don’t need convincing. Maybe there’s just not a great way to have a character mention climate change and not have it feel super cringe.
Whatever the reason, between 2016 and 2020, less than 3% of film and TV scripts used climate-related keywords during their runtime, according to an analysis by media researchers at the University of Southern California. (The situation isn’t as bad in literature, where cli-fi has been going strong since at least 2013.) At least on the surface, this on-screen avoidance of climate change continued in 2024. One of the biggest movies of the summer, Twisters, had an extreme weather angle sitting right there, but its director, Lee Isaac Chung, went out of his way to ensure the film didn’t have a climate change “message.”
I have a slightly different take on the situation, though — that 2024 was actuallyfull of climate movies, and, I’d argue, that they’re getting much closer to the kinds of stories a climate-concerned individual should want on screen.
That’s because for the most part, when movies and TV shows have tackled the topic of climate change in the past, it’s been with the sort of “simplistic anger-stoking and pathos-wringing” that The New Yorker’s Richard Brody identified in 2022’s Don’t Look Up, the Adam McKay satire that became the primary touchpoint for scripted climate stories. At least it was kind of funny: More overt climate stories like last year’s Foe, starring Saoirse Ronan and Paul Mescal, and Extrapolations, the Apple TV+ show in which Meryl Streep voices a whale, are so self-righteous as to be unwatchable (not to mention, no fun).
But what if we widened our lens and weren’t so prescriptive? Then maybe Furiosa, this spring’s Mad Max prequel, becomes a climate change movie. The film is set during a “near future” ecological collapse, and it certainly makes you think about water scarcity and our overreliance on a finite extracted resource — but it also makes you think about how badass the Octoboss’ kite is. The same goes for Dune: Part Two, which made over $82 million in its opening weekend and is also a recognizable environmental allegory featuring some cool worms. Even Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, a flop that most people have already memory-holed, revisitedThe Day After Tomorrow’s question of, “What if New York City got really, really, really cold?”
Two 2024 animated films with climate themes could even compete against each other at the Academy Awards next year. Dreamworks Animation’s The Wild Robot, one of the centerpiece films at this fall’s inaugural Climate Film Festival, is set in a world where sea levels have risen to submerge the Golden Gate Bridge, and it impresses on its audience the importance of protecting the natural world. And in Gints Zilbalodis’ Flow, one of my favorite films of the year, a cat must band together with other animals to survive a flood.
Flow also raises the question of whether a project can unintentionally be a climate movie. Zilbalodis told me that making a point about environmental catastrophe wasn’t his intention — “I can’t really start with the message, I have to start with the character,” he said — and to him, the water is a visual metaphor in an allegory about overcoming your fears.
But watching the movie in a year when more than a thousand people worldwide have died in floods, and with images of inundated towns in North Carolina still fresh in mind, it’s actually climate change itself that makes one watch Flow as a movie about climate change. (I’m not the only one with this interpretation, either: Zilbalodis told me he’d been asked by one young audience member if the flood depicted in his film is “the future.”)
Perhaps this is how we should also consider Chung’s comments about Twisters. While nobody in the film says the words “climate change” or “global warming,” the characters note that storms are becoming exceptional — “we've never seen tornadoes like this before,” one says. Despite the director’s stated intention not to make the movie “about” climate change, it becomes a climate movie by virtue of what its audiences have experienced in their own lives.
Still, there’s that niggling question: Do movies like these, which approach climate themes slant-wise, really count? To help me decide, I turned to Sam Read, the executive director of the Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, an advocacy consortium that encourages environmental awareness both on set and on screen. He told me that to qualify something as a “climate” movie or TV show, some research groups look to see if climate change exists in the world of the story or whether the characters acknowledge it. Other groups consider climate in tiers, such as whether a project has a climate premise, theme, or simply a moment.
The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, however, has no hard rules. “We want to make sure that we support creatives in integrating these stories in whatever way works for them,” Read told me.
Read also confirmed my belief that there seemed to be an uptick in movies this year that were “not about climate change but still deal with things that feel very climate-related, like resource extraction.” There was even more progress on this front in television, he pointed out: True Detective: Night Country wove in themes of environmentalism, pollution, mining, and Indigenous stewardship; the Max comedy Hacks featured an episode about climate change this season; and Industry involved a storyline about taking a clean energy company public, with some of the characters even attending COP. Even Doctor Odyssey, a cruise ship medical drama that airs on USA, worked climate change into its script, albeit in ridiculous ways. (Also worth mentioning: The Netflix dating show Love is Blind cast Taylor Krause, who works on decarbonizing heavy industry at RMI.)
We can certainly do more. As many critics before me have written, it’s still important to draw a connection between things like environmental catastrophes and the real-world human causes of global warming. But the difference between something being “a climate movie” and propaganda — however true its message, or however well-intentioned — is thin. Besides, no one goes to the movies because they want to be scolded; we want to be moved and distracted and entertained.
I’ve done my fair share of complaining over the past few years about how climate storytelling needs to grow up. But lately I’ve been coming around to the idea that it’s not the words “climate change” appearing in a script that we need to be so focused on. As 2024’s slate of films has proven to me — or, perhaps, as this year’s extreme weather events have thrown into relief — there are climate movies everywhere.
Keep ‘em coming.
They might not be worried now, but Democrats made the same mistake earlier this year.
Permitting reform is dead in the 118th Congress.
It died earlier this week, although you could be forgiven for missing it. On Tuesday, bipartisan talks among lawmakers fell apart over a bid to rewrite parts of the National Environmental Policy Act. The changes — pushed for by Representative Bruce Westerman, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee — would have made it harder for outside groups to sue to block energy projects under NEPA, a 1970 law that governs the country’s process for environmental decisionmaking.
When those talks died, they also killed a separate deal over permitting struck earlier this year between Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. That deal, as I detailed last week, would have loosened some federal rules around oil and gas drilling in exchange for a new, quasi-mandatory scheme to build huge amounts of long-distance transmission.
Rest in peace, I suppose. Even if lawmakers could not agree on NEPA changes, I think Republicans made a mistake by not moving forward with the Manchin-Barrasso deal. (I still believe that the standalone deal could have passed the Senate and the House if put to a vote.) At this point, I do not think we will see another shot at bipartisan permitting reform until at least late 2026, when the federal highway law will need fresh funding.
But it is difficult to get too upset about this failure because larger mistakes have since compounded the initial one. On Wednesday, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s bipartisan deal to fund the government — which is, after all, a much more fundamental task of governance than rewriting some federal permitting laws — fell apart, seemingly because Donald Trump and Elon Musk decided they didn’t like it. If I can indulge in the subjunctive for a moment: That breakdown might have likely killed any potential permitting deal, too. So even in a world where lawmakers somehow did strike a deal earlier this week, it might already be dead. (As I write this, the House GOP has reportedly reached a new deal to fund the government through March, which has weakened or removed provisions governing pharmacy benefit managers and limiting American investments in China.)
The facile reading of this situation is that Republicans now hold the advantage. The Trump administration will soon be able to implement some of the fossil fuel provisions in the Manchin-Barrasso deal through the administrative state. Trump will likely expand onshore and offshore drilling, will lease the government’s best acreage to oil and gas companies, and will approve as many liquified natural gas export terminals as possible. His administration will do so, however, without the enhanced legal protection that the deal would have provided — and while those protections are not a must-have, especially with a friendly Supreme Court, their absence will still allow environmental groups to try to run down the clock on some of Trump’s more ambitious initiatives.
Republicans believe that they will be able to get parts of permitting reform done in a partisan reconciliation bill next year. These efforts seem quite likely to run aground, at least as long as something like the current rules governing reconciliation bills hold. I have heard some crazy proposals on this topic — what if skipping a permitting fight somehow became a revenue-raiser for the federal government? — but even they do not touch the deep structure of NEPA in the way a bipartisan compromise could. As Westerman toldPolitico’s Josh Siegel: “We need 60 votes in the Senate to get real permitting reform … People are just going to have to come to an agreement on what permitting reform is.” In any case, Manchin and the Democrats already tried to reform the permitting system via a partisan reconciliation bill and found it essentially impossible.
Even if reconciliation fails, Republicans say, they will still be in a better negotiating position next year than this year because the party will control a few more Senate votes. But will they? The GOP will just have come off a difficult fight over tax reform. Twelve or 24 months from now, demands on the country’s electricity grid are likely to be higher than they are today, and the risk of blackouts will be higher than before. The lack of a robust transmission network will hinder the ability to build a massive new AI infrastructure, as some of Trump’s tech industry backers hope. But 12 or 24 months from now, too, Democrats — furious at Trump — are not going to be in a dealmaking mood, and Republicans have relatively few ways to bring them to the table.
In any case, savvy Republicans should have realized that it is important to get supply-side economic reforms done as early in a president’s four-year term as possible. Such changes take time to filter through the system and turn into real projects and real economic activity; passing the law as early as possible means that the president’s party can enjoy them and campaign on them.
All of it starts to seem more and more familiar. When Manchin and Barrasso unveiled their compromise earlier this year, Democrats didn’t act quickly on it. They felt confident that the window for a deal wouldn’t close — and they looked forward to a potential trifecta, when they would be able to get even more done (and reject some of Manchin’s fossil fuel-friendly compromises).
Democrats, I think, wound up regretting the cavalier attitude that they brought to permitting reform before Trump’s win. But now the GOP is acting the same way: It is rejecting compromises, believing that it will be able to strike a better deal on permitting issues during its forthcoming trifecta. That was a mistake when Democrats did it. I think it will be a mistake for Republicans, too.