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.
On congestion pricing, carbon capture progress, and Tim Kaine.
Current conditions:New Orleans is experiencing another arctic blast, with wind chills near 20 degrees Fahrenheit on Thursday • Continued warm, dry conditions in India threaten the country’s wheat crop • Heavy rain in Botswana has caused widespread flooding.
Environmental groups filed their first lawsuit against the Trump administration on Wednesday, challenging Trump’s moves to open up public lands and waters to oil and gas drilling. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Oceana, among others, are contesting the president’s executive order revoking Joe Biden’s protections of parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans from oil and gas leasing. The groups claim that the president has the authority to create these protections but not to withdraw them — a right reserved for Congress — and notes that a federal court confirmed this after Trump attempted to undo similar Obama-era protections during his first term.
President Trump made his move to kill New York City’s congestion pricing program on Wednesday. In a letter to Governor Kathy Hochul, Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said he was reversing the Department of Transportation’s approval of the scheme, citing the impacts on drivers and claiming the program violated federal statute. Trump declared it “DEAD” in a Truth Social post, where he also proclaimed that New York had been “SAVED” and closed with “LONG LIVE THE KING.” The Metropolitan Transit Authority, which runs the program and relies on funding from it, immediately challenged the decision in a federal court and said it would continue to operate the program “unless and until a court orders otherwise.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
A sweeping annual report from BloombergNEF and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy has a number of hopeful and concerning stats about what happened in America’s energy transition last year.
The Good:
Chart courtesy of the Business Council on Sustainable Energy
The Bad:
The same BNEF report also paints a lackluster picture of clean hydrogen and carbon capture development, two technologies that should benefit from generous federal subsidies. The U.S. had just 79 megawatts of “green” hydrogen production capacity by the end of 2024, with plans to build 34.7 gigawatts in the coming years.
The hydrogen industry was in limbo last year as it awaited final rules for claiming the production tax credit. Green hydrogen is made from carbon-free electricity and water. But most hydrogen announcements in 2024 — some 77% — were for “blue” hydrogen, which is made from natural gas using carbon capture. And while there’s a growing pipeline of carbon capture projects, with plans to deploy the tech in new sectors like ammonia and chemical production, U.S. carbon capture capacity has remained unchanged since 2020.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico detailed their plan to invalidate President Trump’s declaration of an energy emergency. In early February, the two introduced what’s called a “privileged joint resolution” to terminate the emergency declaration, a type of legislation that the Senate is required to vote on. “We’re going to force a vote, force everybody to declare where they are on this sham emergency declaration,” Kaine said. Kaine and Heinrich made the case that the U.S. produced more oil and gas last year than at any point in history, and discussed the many domestic manufacturing projects and jobs that President Trump’s war on clean energy has put under threat. The vote is expected next week.
Sweden’s Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit brought by Greta Thunberg and other activists against the nation for not doing enough to stop climate change.
And it’s doing so in the most chaotic way possible.
The Trump administration filed a rule change this past weekend to remove key implementation regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act, a critical environmental law that dates back to 1969. While this new rule, once finalized, wouldn’t eliminate NEPA itself (doing so would take an act of Congress), it would eliminate the authority of the office charged with overseeing how federal agencies interpret and implement the law. This throws the entire federal environmental review process into limbo as developers await what will likely be a long and torturous legal battle over the law’s future.
The office in question, the Council on Environmental Quality, is part of the Executive Office of the President and has directed NEPA administration for nearly the law’s entire existence. Individual agencies have their own specific NEPA regulations, which will remain in effect even as CEQ’s blanket procedural requirements go away. “The argument here is that CEQ is redundant and that each agency can implement NEPA by following the existing law,” Emily Domenech, a senior vice president at the climate-focused government affairs and advisory firm Boundary Stone, told me. Domenech formerly served as a senior policy advisor to current and former Republican Speakers of the House Mike Johnson and Kevin McCarthy.
NEPA has been the subject of growing bipartisan ire in recent years, as lengthy environmental review processes and a barrage of lawsuits from environmental and community groups have delayed infrastructure projects of all types. While the text of the pending rule is not yet public, the idea is to streamline permitting and make it easier for developers to build. In theory that would include expediting projects such as solar farms and clean energy manufacturing facilities; in reality, under the Trump administration, the benefits could redound to fossil fuel infrastructure first and foremost.
On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order entitled Unleashing American Energy, which instructed CEQ to provide new, nonbinding guidance on NEPA implementation and “propose rescinding” its existing regulations within 30 days. Time is up, and CEQ published its first round of guidance late Wednesday night. So far it’s pretty bare bones, though as Hochman pointed out, it notably does away with environmental justice considerations as well as the need to take the “cumulative” environmental effect of an action into account, as opposed to simply the “reasonably foreseeable effects.” It also looks to exempt certain projects that receive federal loans from the NEPA process.
But gutting CEQ’s regulatory capacity via this so-called “interim final rule” is a controversial move of questionable legality. Interim final rules generally go into effect immediately, thus skirting the requirement to gather public comment beforehand. Expediting rules like this is only allowed in cases where posting advance notice and taking comments is deemed “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
It’s almost certain that this interim rule will be challenged in court. Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff certainly thinks it should be. “This action is rash, unlawful, and unwise. Rather than making it easier to responsibly build new infrastructure, throwing out implementing regulations for NEPA will only serve to create chaos and uncertainty,” Shoaff said in a statement. “The Trump administration seems to think that the rules don’t apply to them, but we’re confident the courts will say otherwise.”
Thomas Hochman, director of infrastructure at the center-right think tank Foundation for American Innovation, disagrees. “I think environmental groups will sue, and I think they’ll lose,” he told me. Hochman cited a surprising decision issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last November, which stated that CEQ did not have the authority to issue binding NEPA regulations, and that it was never intended to "act as a regulatory agency rather than as an advisory agency.” This ruling ultimately made it possible for Trump to so radically reimagine CEQ’s authority in his executive order.
“I would expect environmentalists on the left to challenge any Trump administration actions on NEPA,” Domenech told me. “But I actually think that the Trump team welcomes that, because they'd love to get quicker, decisive rulings on whether or not CEQ even had this authority to begin with.”
NEPA, which went into effect before the Environmental Protection Agency was even created, is a short law with the simple goal of requiring federal agencies to take the environmental impact of their work into account. But responsibility for the law’s implementation has always fallen to CEQ, which created a meticulous environmental review and public input process — perhaps too meticulous for an era that demands significant, rapid infrastructure investment to enable the energy transition.
Recognizing this, the Biden administration tried to rein in NEPA and expedite environmental review via provisions in the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which included imposing time limits on Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements and setting page limits for these documents. But as Hochman sees it, these well intentioned reforms didn’t make much of a dent. “It was up to CEQ to take the language from the Fiscal Responsibility Act and then write their interpretation of it,” he told me. “And what CEQ basically did was they grafted it back into the status quo.” Now that those regulations are kaput, however, Hochman thinks the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s amendments will have much more power to narrow NEPA’s mandate.
Trump’s executive order requires the yet-to-be-announced chair of CEQ to coordinate a revision of each individual agency’s NEPA regulations, a process that the recent CEQ guidelines allow 12 months for. But developers can’t afford to sit around. So in the meantime, CEQ recommends (but can’t enforce) that agencies “continue to follow their existing practices and procedures for implementing NEPA” and emphasizes that “agencies should not delay pending or ongoing NEPA analyses while undertaking these revisions.” That said, chaos and confusion are always an option. As Hochman explained, many current agency regulations reference the soon-to-be defunct CEQ regulations, which could create legal complications.
Hochman told me he still thinks CEQ has an important role to play in a scaled-down NEPA landscape. “CEQ ideally will define pretty clearly the framework that agencies should abide by as they write their new regulations,” he explained. For example, he told me that CEQ should be responsible for interpreting critical terms such as what constitutes a “major federal action” that would trigger NEPA, or what counts as an action that “normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment,” which would exempt a project from substantial environmental review.
No doubt many of these interpretations will wind up in court. “You will probably see up front litigation of these original definitions, but once they’ve been decided on by higher courts, they won’t really be an open question anymore,” Hochman told me. Basically, some initial pain for lots of future gain is what he’s betting on. Once the text of the interim rule is posted and the lawsuits start rolling in, we’ll check in on the status of that wager.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the publication of CEQ’s new guidance on NEPA implementation.
Trump called himself “king” and tried to kill the program, but it might not be so simple.
The Trump administration will try to kill congestion pricing, the first-in-the-nation program that charged cars and trucks up to $9 to enter Manhattan’s traffic-clogged downtown core.
In an exclusive story given to the New York Post, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said that he would rescind the U.S. Transportation Department’s approval of the pricing regime.
“The toll program leaves drivers without any free highway alternative, and instead, takes more money from working people to pay for a transit system and not highways,” Duffy told the Post.
He did not specify an end date for the program, but said that he would work with New York to achieve an “orderly termination” of the tolls. But it’s not clear that he can unilaterally end congestion pricing — and in any case, New York is not eager to work with him to do so.
The attempted cancellation adds another chapter to the decades-long saga over whether to implement road pricing in downtown New York. And it represents another front in the Trump administration’s war on virtually any policy that reduces fossil fuel use and cuts pollution from the transportation sector, the most carbon-intensive sector in the U.S. economy.
“CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED,” Trump posted on Truth Social, the social network that he owns. “LONG LIVE THE KING!”
The Metropolitan Transit Authority, the state agency that oversees New York’s tolling and transit system, has filed to block the cancellation in court. In a statement, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that Trump didn’t have the authority to kill the tolling program.
“We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” Hochul said. “We’ll see you in court.”
Since it started on January 5, congestion pricing has charged drivers up to $9 to drive into Manhattan south of 60th Street. With its launch, New York joined a small set of world capitals — including London, Singapore, and Stockholm — to use road pricing in its central business district.
Even in its first weeks in Gotham, congestion pricing had seemingly proven successful at its main goal: cutting down on traffic. Travel times to enter Manhattan have fallen and in some cases — such as driving into the Holland Tunnel from New Jersey — have been cut in half during rush hour, according to an online tracker built by economics researchers that uses Google Maps data.
Anecdotally, drivers have reported faster drive times within the city and much less honking overall. (I can affirm that downtown is much quieter now.) City buses zoomed through their routes, at times having to pause at certain stops in order to keep from running ahead of their schedules.
The program has been so successful that it had even begun to turn around in public polling. Although congestion pricing was incredibly unpopular during its long gestation, a majority of New Yorkers now support the program. In early February, six of 10 New Yorkers said that they thought Trump should keep the program and not kill it, according to a Morning Consult poll.
That matches a pattern seen in other cities that adopt congestion pricing, where most voters hate the program until they see that it successfully improves travel times and reduces traffic.
While Trump might now be claiming regal powers to block the program, the toll’s origin story has been democratic to a fault. Although congestion pricing has been proposed in New York for decades, the state’s legislature approved the program in 2019 as part of its long-running search for a permanent source of funding for the city’s trains and buses.
The federal government then studied the program for half a decade, first under Trump, then under Biden, generating thousands upon thousands of pages of environmental and legal review. At long last, the Biden administration granted final approval for the program last year.
But then congestion pricing had to clear another hurdle. In June, Hochul paused the program at the last moment, hoping to find another source of permanent funding for the city’s public transit system.
She didn’t. In November, she announced that the program would go into effect in the new year.
It’s not clear whether the Trump administration can actually kill congestion pricing. When the Biden administration approved the program, it did so essentially as a one-time finding. Duffy may not be able to revoke that finding — just like you can’t un-sign a contract that you’ve already agreed to.
In his letter to Hochul, Duffy argues that congestion pricing breaks a longstanding norm that federally funded highways should not be tolled. “The construction of federal-aid highways as a toll-free highway system has long been one of the most basic and fundamental tenets of the federal-aid Highway Program,” he says.
That argument is surprising because federal highways in Manhattan — such as the West Side Highway — are excluded from the toll by design. Drivers only incur the $9 charge when they leave highways and enter Manhattan’s street grid. And drivers can use the interstate highway system but avoid the congestion charge by entering uptown Manhattan through Interstate 95 and then parking north of 60th Street.
Duffy also argues that the tolling program is chiefly meant to raise revenue for the MTA, not reduce congestion. The federal government’s approval of pilot congestion pricing programs is aimed at cutting traffic, he says, not raising revenue for state agencies.
In its lawsuit, the MTA asserts that Duffy does not have the right to revoke the agreement. It also says that he must conduct the same degree of environmental review to kill the program that the first Trump administration required when the program was originally proposed.
“The status quo is that Congestion Pricing continues, and unless and until a court orders otherwise, plaintiffs will continue to operate the program as required by New York law,” the MTA’s brief says.