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:
The new rules are complicated. Here’s how to make sense of them if you’re shopping for an electric vehicle.

The Department of Treasury published new rules last year that will determine which new electric vehicles, purchased for personal use, will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit. They went into effect on April 18, 2023, and last for the next decade or so.
These new tax credit rules are complicated. The list of cars that qualify for the new tax credit can change from year to year — and even month to month. Many buyers in the EV market might have a few questions, including: Should I buy that new car now, or should I wait? Which cars qualify for the current tax credit, and which ones will earn the new one?
This is Heatmap’s guide to the new tax credit, why it matters, and what to keep in mind as you go EV shopping.
If you’re an ordinary American buying a brand-new EV to run errands and pick up the kids, these new rules apply to you. They will determine which cars you can get a federally funded discount on.
If you’re not buying a new car for personal use — because you’re getting it for your business, say, or because you’re buying a used EV — these new rules don’t apply to you. But you may qualify for other new subsidies. We get into those below.
And even if you are in that first category, you may discover it’s much cheaper to lease a new EV instead of buying it outright. We get into why below, too.
They completely change how the United States approaches the EV industry.
During the Bush and Obama administrations, the U.S. was focused mostly on getting automakers to begin to experiment with EVs. So it discounted the first 200,000 or so electric vehicles that each manufacturer sold by up to $7,500. If a company had cumulatively sold more than that number over time, as Tesla and General Motors eventually did, then the discount expired. By 2022, that had led to a peculiar situation where foreign automakers, such as Hyundai, could use the subsidy, while some of the largest American automakers couldn’t.
Now, U.S. policy is focused on two goals: (1) building up a domestic supply chain for EVs and (2) getting more EVs on the road. So the tax break is completely uncapped — any automaker can use it as many times as possible if they meet the criteria.
But many new requirements apply: Only cars that undergo final assembly in North America will qualify for any of the tax credit. Then, cars with a battery that was more than 50% made in North America will qualify for a $3,750 subsidy. And cars where at least 40% of the “critical minerals” used come from the U.S. or a country with whom we have a free-trade agreement will qualify for another $3,750 subsidy.
Those percentage-based requirements will ramp up over time. By 2029, for instance, 100% of a car’s battery and battery components must be made in North America.
Because Congress said so. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Democratic majorities in the House and Senate passed last year, mandated this change to the EV tax credit as part of its broad expansion of American climate policy.
Initially, fewer EVs will receive a subsidy under the new rules, Biden officials say. On a press call with reporters, a senior Treasury official argued that more cars will eventually qualify under the new rules than qualified under the old ones.
This year, at least 15 car or light trucks will receive some or all of the credit. Only some of those vehicles will qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit; some will qualify for a partial $3,750 tax credit. Here is the full list of qualifying models, along with the amount of the tax credit that they will earn:
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro PHEV ($3,750)
• Cadillac LYRIQ ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt ($7,500)
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV ($7,500)
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV ($7,500)
• Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid ($3,750)
• Ford F-150 Lightning, Standard & Extended Range ($7,500)
• Jeep Wrangler PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Jeep Grand Cherokee PHEV 4xe ($3,750)
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring ($3,750)
• Rivian R1S, Dual Large & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Rivian R1T, Dual Large, Dual Max, & Quad Large ($3,750)
• Tesla Model X Long Range ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Performance ($7,500)
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD ($3,500)
• Tesla Model Y AWD, Rear-Wheel Drive, & Performance ($7,500)
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD PRO, PRO, S, & Standard ($7,500)
Some vehicles that earned the full tax credit in 2023, such as the Ford Mustang Mach E, don’t qualify for any benefit as of January 2, 2024.
Yes. A few examples: The Hummer EV, which costs more than $110,000 a piece, won’t qualify for either the new or old tax credit — it’s too expensive. And the Polestar 2 won’t qualify because it’s assembled in China.
Yes. Starting this year, the U.S. is preventing cars that receive too much manufacturing input from a “foreign entity of concern” — that is, China — from qualifying for any of the tax credit. This has reduced the number of vehicles that qualify for the $7,500 bonus.
This year, the government will also allow buyers to refund their EV tax credit at the dealership. That means buyers can now get up to a $7,500 discount at the moment when they buy their car instead of waiting until they file their taxes in the following year.
Yes. A married couple must have an adjusted gross income of less than $300,000 a year, and a single filer must have an AGI of less than $150,000 a year, to qualify for any aspect of the subsidy. A head-of-household must have an income of less than $225,000 a year.
Yes. Under the proposed rule, cars must have an MSRP below $55,000 to qualify for the credit. Vans, pickup trucks, and SUVs must have an MSRP below $80,000.
Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act also included a new $7,500 tax credit for EVs used for any commercial purpose. The Treasury Department is expected to interpret that provision to cover leasing, but it hasn’t announced the guidelines for that rule yet, so we don’t know for sure.
But the provision will probably tilt new EV drivers toward leasing their car rather than buying it outright, because the dealer should — emphasis on should — offer relative discounts on leasing vehicles as compared to buying them.
Yes. There’s also a new $4,000 tax credit for buying a used EV that costs $25,000 or less. It went into effect on January 1, 2023, so you can go ahead and use it today.
But note that it has even stricter income limits: Married couples can only take advantage of it if they make $150,000 or less, and other filers if they make $75,000 or less.
Here’s the list of cars that qualified for the $7,500 tax credit before April 18, 2023, according to the Department of Energy.
• Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro (PHEV)
• BMW 330e *
• BMW X5 xDrive45e**
• Cadillac Lyriq
• Chevrolet Bolt
• Chevrolet Bolt EUV
• Chevrolet Silverado EV
• Chrysler Pacifica PHEV
• Ford E-Transit
• Ford Escape Plug-In Hybrid *
• Ford F-150 Lightning
• Ford Mustang Mach-E
• Genesis Electrified GV70
• Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe
• Jeep Wrangler 4xe
• Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring *
• Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring *
• Nissan Leaf
• Nissan Leaf (S, SL, SV, and Plus models)
• Rivian R1S
• Rivian R1T
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range
• Tesla Model 3 Performance
• Tesla Model 3 RWD
• Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive
• Tesla Model Y Long Range
• Tesla Model Y Performance
• Volkswagen ID.4
• Volkswagen ID.4 AWD, Pro, and S models
• Volvo S60 PHEV *
• Volvo S60 Extended Range
• Volvo S60 T8 Recharge (Extended Range)
* These cars don’t qualify for the full $7,500 subsidy, although they all receive at least a $5,400 tax credit.
** Only some BMW X5 xDrive45e vehicles qualify — it depends where the car was made. Check the VIN or ask the dealership to confirm it was made in North America before buying.
This story was originally published on March 31, 2023. It was last updated on March 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
Get the best of Heatmap delivered to your inbox:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
At this point, I think it’s clear that AI data centers are unpopular.
You probably know it, at least. I was preparing talk about data center opposition on a podcast today and I took the opportunity to dive back into our data, so I certainly know it. At this point, we’ve written about results from our polling that show Americans overwhelmingly oppose local data center construction, that majorities of Americans now support a national data center moratorium, and that the only group of Americans who feels more optimistic than pessimistic about artificial intelligence is … men older than 65 years old.
So I got curious: Given all that, who actually supports AI data centers?
One question from our recent Heatmap Pro poll, conducted by Embold Research, helps give us a sense. This is the profile of someone our data says would support a data center built in their local area:
A few facets stand out. These data center YIMBYs are more likely to be men, and more likely to be 2024 Trump voters, but they’re not locked into one age demographic or voting cohort. A third are Harris supporters, and roughly a third are women. Data center YIMBYs are more likely to be older than 50, but the majority isn’t overwhelming.
Get Rob in your inbox daily.
Perhaps more surprising: The group has many more people who voted third-party in the 2024 election (8%) than the general population (just under 2%), although that response could also include people who didn’t vote. (Alas, the data can’t quite confirm how many in this group are libertarian.)
What’s perhaps most interesting: This group overwhelmingly believes that artificial intelligence will make their lives better. And in heartening news for climate advocates, they are even more likely to support a given data center project if it is powered by renewables.
I was going to joke that the profile is essentially a newly retired engineering dad — except that, to my surprise, these data center YIMBYs are far less gender imbalanced than the American engineering profession. (They’re also less gender-imbalanced than American Tesla owners.) So I’ll leave it at that.
Five takeaways from the latest Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy report.
It’s all getting more expensive.
That’s the conclusion of the investment bank Lazard’s latest report on the levelized cost of energy, one of the most closely watched and cited energy reports of the year.
Levelized cost of energy measures the dollars per megawatt-hour a power plant needs to earn in revenue to break even over the course of its lifetime in present-value terms.
What makes LCOE so alluring is that it’s a way to compare any type of generator, whether it requires a large upfront investment but has few operating costs, like a utility-scale solar project, or whether its expenses are largely fuel costs incurred in the future, like a combined cycle natural gas plant. This is also why LCOE has its critics, who point out that a solar panel that only runs during certain times of day has a different value to the electricity system than a natural gas plant that can ramp up and down quickly or a nuclear plant that provides steady baseload power.
Anyway, here’s what we can learn from this year’s Lazard report.
Curves that were once gently sloping downward are starting to look like incipient U’s. While longterm LCOE falls are still dramatic and impressive for some technologies — utility solar has fallen from $359 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $69 in 2026 — the short term rises are worrisome. That $69 per megawatt hour represents a nearly 10% increase from 2025, when utility-scale solar had a LCOE of $58. And it’s not just renewables — the LCOE for a combined cycle natural gas plant rose from $78 per megawatt-hour to $90 in the past year. Gas plant LCOE got as low as $60 in 2021. That’s a 50% price hike in just five years.
Lazard attributed the increase in solar and wind LCOE to “higher capital costs, sustained interest rates, tariff pass-through and supply chain repricing.” These technologies are also the most “sensitive” to subsidies by way of the tax code, with federal tax tax credits taking the low end cost of utility solar to as low as $16 per megawatt hour. To the extent those tax credits are no longer available or weren’t accessible due to strict eligibility rules, that could be a source of future upward pressure on costs.
That being said, renewables “maintain their relative cost advantage despite facing the same cost pressures affecting the rest of the generation stack,” the Lazard analysts concluded.
Natural gas, meanwhile, is seeing prices spiral upward on huge and growing customer demand.
“Continuous upward revisions to demand projections have driven a sharp increase in announced new-build gas generation despite a 15-year high LCOE and historically long development lead times,” according to Lazard.
The report hints at what LCOE is not always able to capture, namely that generators like gas have attributes besides low cost that make them attractive. “New gas combined cycle plants offer the lowest-cost dispatchable power in high-demand and low-cost-gas environments,” the analysts point out.
Anyone building a new combined cycle gas plant, however, will have to deal with the high cost and low availability for turbines, which is “extending development timelines well beyond historical norms.” That provides an opening for renewables that can be deployed quickly and cheaply, like solar and accompanied by battery storage.
In 2019, the low end of LCOE for onshore end was $28 per megawatt-hour, according to Lazard’s figures, and the high end was $54. In 2026, however, the low end costs sits a bit higher at $37 per megawatt-hour, but the high end cost rose to $99. There’s a similar story for utility solar: in 2019, the spread between low and high was a snug $8 per megawatt-hour, while this year it’s ballooned to $58.
The broadening range is “likely reflecting that some project developers have been better able to mitigate broader cost pressures across supply chain and project-level economics than others,” the Lazard analysts wrote.
The Lazard report doesn’t just look at the discounted cost of individual generators over their lifetimes. It also tries to figure how much they cost on certain grids. One way of doing this is to look at what Lazard calls the “cost of firming intermittency” or “levelized firming costs.” This is essentially looking at what it costs to bring solar, solar and storage, and wind and storage onto actual grids considering their ability to perform when the grid is most stressed.
This measure tries to refine LCOE to give a sense of how various forms of energy generation compare to gas plants in real world circumstances, not just as a financial construct. This is not a perfect, real-world comparison — gas capacity needs to be “firmed” as well, as it’s not always entirely available at times of peak need — but at least it gives an idea of how these resources actually function in a real-world grid.
Even with firming costs, “renewables remain broadly cost-competitive,” the report concludes.
Not surprisingly, some of the most dramatic costs are in America’s most troubled electricity market, PJM Interconnection. The unsubsidized cost of firming intermittency for solar and storage is $167 per megawatt-hour, compared to $150 in Texas or $115 in California. That’s also compared to a $129 per megawatt-hour at the high end for conventional combined cycle gas plants in PJM.
PJM is notorious for its inability to bring on new resources quickly and its strict standards for accrediting the contribution of storage and renewables to grid stability.
While the Lazard authors explicitly caution that it doesn’t measure what the“total system costs are for 1 MWh of incremental electricity” and can’t say “the optimal mix of renewables, conventional generation and storage,” it does conclude that “firming costs and dispatchability are increasingly critical for comparing resources on a more complex grid.”
In short, no matter what ends up on the grid, grid planners will have to think carefully about how to make sure it’s reliable and works in concert with what’s already there.
Timber companies think of them as pests, but new research indicates that stands of the slender tree can act as barriers against raging flames.
Colorado’s Aspen Acres Fire is named after a quiet RV campground located high in the San Isabel Mountains, about a five-hour drive due southeast of the state’s better-known Aspen. Both places, however, are named after the iconic deciduous tree known for its golden leaves in the fall. While the start of monsoon season may yet prevent the Aspen Acres Fire — the seventh-largest in Colorado’s history — from joining Utah’s Babylon Fire as the second 100,000-acre “megafire” of the season, the conflagration has been aided in its rampage not by aspens, but rather by dead, downed, and blighted ponderosa pines, spruce, and Douglas firs. The wildfire has now burned over 98,000 acres and nearly 300 homes, and is only 36% contained due to steep terrain that has hampered firefighting efforts, along with extreme drought conditions and beetle infestations that have greatly degraded the forest health of the region.
But what about its aspens? Though the extent of the damage at the campground remains unknown, according to a recent study of Populus tremuloides, Colorado’s iconic golden trees could be one of the keys to more wildfire-resistant forests in the future.
Flavie Pelletier, a recent PhD graduate of McGill University’s Natural Resource Sciences program, told me she first became interested in aspens while working as a tree planter in British Columbia. “The historical assumption on aspen is that stands are very good at stopping fire progression. But the paradox is that if you take an aspen by itself, it’s going to burn at high severity,” Pelletier, who published her findings in Forest Ecology and Management, told me.
By creating near-real-time maps of fires using satellites and comparing them against the Canadian Forest Service’s newly available maps of dominant tree species in the boreal, Pelletier and her colleagues discovered that aspen were almost two and a half times more common at the perimeter of a burned area than inside it. The finding suggests that despite the flammability of a single aspen with its thin bark, stands of aspen act as a kind of barrier when wildfire ran up against them, likely because they lack the flammable resins of conifers and their high foliage helps force running crown fires back toward the ground. Pine and spruce, by contrast, showed a near-zero or even negative effect.
When aspen stands did burn, Pelletier found they did so more slowly: A tree cover of 50% aspen burned at about 224 hectares per day, compared to 717 hectares per day in areas where aspen made up less than 10% of the cover. That’s the equivalent of about 1,000 FIFA-regulation soccer pitches per day in places where aspen are sparser — like Aspen Acres.
Even more surprising, though, was that the pattern held true in the early season, when the trees are still twiggy and have yet to grow their moisture-filled leaves, and despite the severity of fire weather. “Aspen still showed resilience even when the fire weather was very intense, [like in 2023, when] we had all the fires,” Pelletier said.
But she was also the first to admit that seasons are getting more extreme, and that there’s no guarantee the pattern will hold for the next 10 or 20 years.
Pelletier was reluctant to make a policy recommendation based on her research, noting that she’s not a forest manager. But in Alberta and British Columbia, timber companies spray hundreds of thousands of acres of timber with glyphosate, an herbicide, to kill off aspens because the trees outcompete the more commercially valuable conifers. Her findings are “a big argument to stop the spreading of herbicides because you’re increasing the risk of fire in your forest by removing aspen,” Pelletier said.
Despite her hesitation, Pelletier is explicit in her paper about one thing: that aspens “should be encouraged — specifically around key landscape positions, such as population centers” — given that they are a proven means of hardening the wildland-urban interface against wildfires. It might be too late for the idyllically named Aspen Acres, of course; any of the aspens that once drew tourists to the area are likely now ash.
But this not be Colorado’s last fire, either.