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:
Some producers were already renegotiating contracts due to rising costs. Then came “Liberation Day.”
Expanding U.S. liquified natural gas exports has been a key priority for Trump and part of his strategy to “unleash U.S. energy dominance.” But his tariffs could make it harder for projects that are still early in their development to succeed.
After taking office, Trump swiftly reversed the Biden administration’s slow-walking of permits for LNG export terminals and issued key approvals for two big new projects in Louisiana, Calcasieu Pass 2 and Commonwealth LNG. They add to a pipeline of roughly eight other projects that have received key federal approvals but have not yet reached a final investment decision, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
Cost inflation was a concern for these projects prior to this week’s tariffs, said Ben Cahill, the director of energy markets and policy at the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis. The previously announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum were already set to make building these projects more expensive, Cahill told me in an email.
Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a research scholar focused on natural gas at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, noted that U.S. liquified natural gas companies were already trying to renegotiate contracts with buyers due to rising costs. “For the moment U.S. LNG is still interesting,” she said in an email, “but if costs increase too much, maybe people will start to wonder.”
The effect of the new round of global tariffs on these projects is much harder for experts to predict, and is changing by the day. Some countries may choose to increase their U.S. LNG imports to try to close their trade deficits and appease Trump. Morningstar analysts issued a note on Thursday predicting a favorable market for Venture Global, the developer behind Calcasieu Pass 2, as it’s looking for buyers, and “could offer the quick and easy victory both Trump and foreign leaders want.”
But the tariffs (not to mention the uncertainty about how long they’ll last) could also turn off potential buyers from signing long-term contracts with the U.S. They may begin to look elsewhere, or impose retaliatory tariffs, as China has already done.
China imposed 15% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. LNG back in February, in response to Trump’s first round of tariffs. Not a single tanker of U.S. LNG has gone to the country since then. Now the country has retaliated to this week’s escalation with an additional 34% tariff on U.S. goods.
That may sound bad for America’s LNG industry, but China is a relatively small buyer right now — only about 5% of U.S. exports went to China last year. That number is set to rise rapidly over the next few years, however, as Chinese companies have signed a number of long-term contracts with U.S. LNG projects that are about to come online. “In a few years from now, assuming nothing has changed and the volumes are growing, that will become more and more complicated,” Corbeau said. “That is very likely to force Chinese buyers to look elsewhere for new LNG contracts. I would bet that the Chinese companies will try to get out of the contracts with the U.S. LNG projects that have not taken [final investment decision] yet.”
Erica Downs, a senior research scholar focused on China at the Center on Global Energy Policy also noted that U.S. LNG developers may have been counting on additional financing for new projects coming from China. “I suspect that what's happening now with the trade war is going to mean that you're not going to see Chinese companies enthusiastic about investing in U.S. LNG projects — although who knows if the Trump administration even wants that,” she told me.
Nearly half of U.S. LNG exports went to Europe last year, and a third went to Asian countries. The biggest buyer was the Netherlands, followed by France, Japan, and South Korea. The U.K. and India were also major customers.
Leading up to this week, European leaders had suggested they were willing to buy more U.S. LNG if it would help avoid being slapped with tariffs by Trump. Clearly, that willingness to buy didn’t pay off. As Politico reported, EU diplomats struggled even to begin talks with the Trump administration to work out a deal. They still could, but Corbeau pointed out in a LinkedIn post Friday morning that it would be tough for the EU — or any other country — to make up their trade deficit with the U.S. simply by boosting LNG imports.
It’s also unclear what leverage these leaders have, as EU governments mostly don’t have a financial stake in their energy companies and can’t tell them from whom to buy fuel. European utilities “may not be so keen to bow to political whims and contract U.S. LNG, or any LNG for that matter,” Corbeau wrote in a recent blog post. Gas consumption in the block is on track to decline, and upcoming environmental regulations on imported gas could rule out U.S. sourcing if Trump also makes good on his plans to repeal U.S. methane pollution regulations. “The EU needs U.S. LNG for the moment, but they may choose not to increase their exposure,” Corbeau told me.
Other countries may simply become wary of increasing their reliance on U.S. energy. “Nobody wants to have to rely on the trade relationship with Trump if this is how he's going to treat his trading partners,” Elan Sykes, the director of energy and climate policy at the Progressive Policy Institute told me. “The environmental and energy security considerations used to both favor the U.S.,” said Sykes. “Now one of them is somewhat unclear, and the president is actively destroying our country's export market value proposition.”
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 $7 billion program had been the only part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel grants awarded from the $7 billion Solar for All program, the final surviving grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, by the end of this week, The New York Times is reporting. Two sources also told the same to Heatmap.
Solar for All awarded funds to 60 nonprofits, tribes, state energy offices, and municipalities to deliver the benefits of solar energy — namely, utility bill savings — to low-income communities. Some of the programs are focused on rooftop solar, while others are building community solar, which enable residents that don’t own their homes to access cheaper power.
The EPA is drafting termination letters to all 60 grantees, the Times reported. An EPA spokesperson equivocated in response to emailed questions from Heatmap about the fate of the program. “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law,” the person said.
Although Solar for All was one of the programs affected by the Trump administration’s initial freeze on Inflation Reduction Act funding, EPA had resumed processing payments for recipients after a federal judge placed an injunction on the pause. But in mid-March, the EPA Office of the Inspector General announced its intent to audit Solar for All. The results of that audit have not yet been published.
The Solar for All grants are a subset of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, most of which had been designated to set up a series of green lending programs. In March, Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the program of fraud, waste, and abuse — the so-called “gold bar” scandal — and attempted to claw back all $20 billion. Recipients of that funding are fighting the termination in an ongoing court case.
State attorneys generals are likely to challenge the Solar for All terminations in court, should they go through, a source familiar with the state programs told me.
All $7 billion under the program has been obligated to grantees, but the money is not yet fully out the door, as recipients must request reimbursements from the EPA as they spend down their grants. Very little has been spent so far, as many grantees opted to use the first year of the five-year program as a planning period.
Without the federal tax credit and until battery prices come down, automakers will have to argue that pricey EVs are worth it.
America’s federal tax credit for buying an electric car was supposed to be the great equalizer, an incentive meant to solve for the fact that EVs have long been more expensive than the polluting fossil fuel vehicles they must replace.
That tax credit is now dead. Thanks to the Republican budget reconciliation bill pushed through Congress this summer, the incentive will die after September 30 of this year.
Its demise comes at a particularly inopportune time. For a long time, even a $7,500 benefit wasn’t enough to make many of the best electric cars cost-competitive with their gasoline-powered rivals. Slowly, that had begun to change: More EVs with a starting MSRP in the $30,000 range, such as the base-level Chevy Equinox EV, could compete directly on price with internal combustion once the tax credit (along with any state and local incentives) was taken into consideration.
Without the tax credit, most EVs can’t compete on price alone. Battery production costs are falling, but not fast enough for a new EV in America to cost the same as a comparable gas car. With electricity prices seemingly set to rise, the appeal of never again buying gasoline isn’t as strong. At the same time, the federal government has been trying to add new, nonsensical taxes on EV ownership. Cars.com says the tax credit was a major reason half of EV owners cited for choosing their vehicle, and that it’s driving the decision for about half of curious buyers.
Add it all up and a big group of American shoppers who might have considered buying an EV if the dollars and cents added up probably won’t, at least for now. The mess leaves electric vehicle makers in a precarious position. They must convince American drivers that EVs are simply superior — more capable, more dependable, and more fun. As longtime Rivian executive Jiten Behl told InsideEVs’ Patrick George last week: “Forget they’re electric for a moment. They’re just better cars. And a better product will always win.”
That argument is an existential one for Rivian, which Behl departed last year. Deliveries of its long-awaited R1S SUV started in 2022, and since then the vehicle has become a Range Rover-replacing status symbol in my part of Los Angeles. But after three years, most people with the means and desire to buy a $70,000 to $80,000 EV have done so, yet the company’s more affordable R2 and R3 vehicles remain at least a year away.
Rivian’s solution for the meantime is to push the limit of electric vehicle performance, dollars be damned. This summer, I’ve driven triple-motor Tri Max versions of both the R1S and the R1T pickup trucks. Zooming from a stop, its 800-plus horsepower and instantaneous torque is whiplash-inducing. Put in Conserve mode and the vehicles approach 400 miles of range, enough to obliterate range anxiety. There’s plenty of power for towing and off-roading, plus all the other functionalities that make EVs better than combustion cars: using the vehicle battery to power one’s home or other uses, Dog Mode, or tapping into battery power to pre-condition the cabin on a scorching or frigid day.
Gas vehicles have modes, of course. Over the past decade or two, drivers have gotten used to the way that “sport” or “eco” modes subtly change the character of a car. In a super-EV like the Rivian, having so much capability at your fingertip feels like the EV could become a totally different car at the push of a button. For the Tri Max models, this level of muscular competence costs north of $100,000. But such prowess speaks to someone out there. Rivian has been developing the more-ultimate-than-ultimate electric vehicle, a quad-motor version with horsepower in the four digits, for those in the “money is no object” tax bracket who’ve been convinced that electric is better (or at least that electric is the future, and they want to own it).
A more telling case will be next year’s arrival of the R2, a two-row electric SUV meant to cost in the neighborhood of $45,000. Without the tax credit, prospective buyers can’t tell themselves that it’s really in the $30,000s. On price, then, it’s competing with BMW SUVs, not Chevys.
This is nothing new for the EV market. Selling electrics as luxury cars with a high price tag helps to mask the cost of the battery, and it brings in more revenue for a startup company like Rivian that desperately needs it. Tesla sold a lot of cars this way even though its refinements, build quality, and creature comforts weren’t quite up to par compared to a Mercedes-Benz or a BMW. Part of the luxury people paid for was the feeling of owning the cool new thing, at least back before Tesla’s brand was tainted.
It’s a bit trickier for legacy car companies, who are struggling to navigate shifting attitudes and incentives in America and to compete against cheap, Chinese-made EVs abroad. Take the Hyundai Ioniq 9 that arrived this summer. Hyundai and Kia are the farthest along of the traditional brands in selling great EVs to Americans, and the Ioniq 9 may be the best electric offering for families that need a three-row vehicle to accommodate their tribe. Thanks in part to the hulking 110-kilowatt hour battery needed for this boat to have 300 miles of EPA-rated range, however, the Ioniq 9 starts at $59,000 — more than $20,000 higher than Hyundai’s similarly sized, gas-powered Palisade.
Even a $7,500 benefit wouldn’t bridge such a divide between electric and gas. So, Hyundai bet all along that, incentives or not, buyers would find the Ioniq 9 to be the premium product that it proved to be during my road trip test drive in one this past weekend. Where the Palisade comes with 291 horsepower from its gas engine, Ioniq 9’s 422 electric horsepower allowed the big vehicle to accelerate effortlessly onto the highway and zoom up the Grapevine mountain pass that leads into Los Angeles, dusting plenty of combustion-powered cars huffing and puffing to get uphill. It is remarkably spacious and startlingly quiet, even when putting out lots of power.
My top-of-the-line Ioniq 9 had numerous tech features meant to make it feel special, like the enormous curved touchscreen that spanned from dashboard to center console and the heads-up display — specs that feel futuristic and attempt to justify the extra cost. But let’s be real. For anyone who’d choose a $60,000 EV over the same company’s $40,000 gas-guzzling SUV, it comes down to the simple, everyday advantages of an electric car: Your home is your gas station and you begin every day with a full tank. You’re sitting on a big battery full of electricity that can be used for more than driving, whether that’s backing up your home appliances during a blackout or just air-conditioning your dog while you run into the drugstore. No oil changes. No belts, sparks plugs, or antifreeze to worry about. No tailpipe emissions poisoning your city’s air or filling your garage with carbon monoxide. Immediate power at your feet. And, of course, the possibility of one day running the family car entirely on clean energy.
None of those reasons will change the financial calculation and make the EV less expensive in the long run. For now, the argument for EVs is that you get what you pay for. When more Americans experience a premium EV, that might be enough to convince them that electric is worth the extra cash, tax credit or not.
On residential solar dims, New Jersey makes history, and Brazil’s challenge
Current conditions: Tropical Storm Dexter has formed in the Atlantic, sending rough surf and rip currents to beaches along the U.S. East Coast • Heavy rainfall threatens flooding in southern Taiwan and northern Vietnam • Storm Floris is battering Scotland with winds of up to 80 miles per hour.
Two top GOP senators are pushing back on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at severely restricting access to tax credits for renewables before a phaseout begins next year. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and Utah Senator John Curtis placed holds on three Trump nominees to the Treasury Department, the agency in charge of writing the rules and guidance for the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Grassley had negotiated a “glidepath for an orderly phaseout” of tax credits for wind and solar, he said in placing the hold, giving developers until next July to start construction on projects. But in an apparent concession to hard-line Republicans in the House of Representatives, Trump signed an executive order days after the bill became law calling for a new guidance to restrict what it means to start construction. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote yesterday, the executive order “has generated understandable concern within the renewables industry” ahead of the deadline in two weeks for the Internal Revenue Service to issue its new guidance. A more restrictive interpretation of what “begin construction” means “could turn the tax credit language into a dead letter,” Matthew reported. Grassley warned that, “until I can be certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent, I intend to continue to object to the consideration of these Treasury nominees.”
Chemicals giants Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva agreed Monday to pay out $875 million over the next 25 years to support communities affected by pollution from “forever chemicals,” The New York Times reported. New Jersey officials called this the biggest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state. As part of the deal, the companies are required to fund the cleanup of four former industrial sites, create a remediation fund of up to $1.2 billion, and put $475 million aside to guarantee the remediation goes forward even if any of the companies go bankrupt. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, typically shortened to PFAS, are called “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in water and in human bodies and never leave. They are linked to all kinds of kidneys and testicular cancer, high cholesterol, and liver damage. “PFAS are particularly insidious,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said in a statement. “These dangerous chemicals build up and accumulate everywhere, and New Jersey has some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country.”
As my colleague Jeva Lange has written, “The United States Geological Survey estimates that as much as 20% of Americans drink, bathe, and brush their teeth with PFAS-contaminated water.” During his first administration, Trump promised to crack down on PFAS. But in May, his Environmental Protection Agency delayed enforcement of federal drinking water limits until 2031, and said it would reconsider rules completed under the Biden administration.
Just 7.5% of suitable owner-occupied residential homes in the United States had installed rooftop solar panels as of the end of 2024. With tax credits and support from the Biden administration’s policies, that segment would have grown by 9% per year over the next five years to reach an adoption rate of 13% nationwide by 2030. But of course, Trump won the election and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Now new data from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie show that residential solar capacity could fall by 46% below those previous projections. That’s due in part to the new federal policies directly, but it also takes into account the potential for no interest rate cuts over the next five years thanks to Trump’s larger economic agenda.
For years, Tesla has cultivated a fandom akin to the cultish following around Apple products in the early 2010s. But since CEO Elon Musk entered the political sphere as a top surrogate for Trump last summer, brand loyalty for the electric automaker has plunged, according to new data the research firm S&P Global Mobility shared with Reuters. Using data gleaned from vehicle registrations in all 50 states, the report shows that Tesla’s customer loyalty peaked in June 2024, the month before Musk endorsed Trump. At that point, 73% of Tesla-owning households in the market for a new car bought another Tesla. By March, the rate had nosedived to 49.9%, just below the automotive industry average.
Dead trees in the Brazilian Amazon. Mario Tama/Getty Images
During his first stretch in office in the early 2000s, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva oversaw a miracle few developing countries had ever accomplished: He slashed deforestation while riding the global commodities boom to grow South America’s largest economy and lift millions out of poverty. Since returning to office in 2022, the left-wing leader better known as Lula sought once again to crack down on the destruction of the Amazon while expanding Brazil’s oil and gas production.
His government now faces an uncomfortable pivot point. His environment minister, Marina Silva, is battling legislation that would gut conservation rules in what the Financial Times called “the biggest potential setback to environmental protection in Brazil in four decades.” At the same time, British oil giant BP announced Monday its biggest oil and gas discovery in 25 years off the coast of Brazil. Striking the right balance is more important than ever as the 79-year-old Lula prepares for a tough reelection campaign next amid ratcheting tensions with Trump. Brazil is also the site of the next United Nations climate conference, COP30, which will take place in Belém in November.
The global economic losses associated with the health costs of plastics pollution now top $1.5 trillion annually, according to a new paper in The Lancet. But the esteemed medical journal notes that the “continued worsening of plastics’ harms is not inevitable. Similar to air pollution and lead, plastics’ harms can be mitigated cost-effectively by evidence-based, transparently tracked, effectively implemented, and adequately financed laws and policies.”