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:
Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the cancellations weeks ago, but the agency has refused to provide details.
New documents obtained by Senate Democrats on the Environmental and Public Works Committee this week shed more light on the inner workings of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s attempt to shut down hundreds of climate- and environmental justice-related grants.
Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware secured a list of 477 grants the EPA has “targeted for termination,” along with damning internal emails from the agency that showed its management knew that many of its terminations to date violated contracts with grantees.
Democrats on the committee sent a letter to Zeldin on Tuesday alleging that EPA was breaking the law and demanding that it rescind any grant termination notices it has sent out.
The list of grants appears to align with a press release the EPA published on March 10 stating that Zeldin had canceled more than 400 grants worth more than $1.7 billion in his fourth round of spending cuts. This was in addition to the $20 billion “green bank” program Zeldin has been attempting to cut. EPA did not say which grants it was canceling or why in any of these rounds of cuts, but last week, the Sierra Club obtained a partial list of what appeared to be the first three rounds through a Freedom of Information Act request.
While nearly half of the grants on the Sierra Club’s list were for research into low-carbon construction materials like steel and cement, all of the funds on the new list were awarded to nonprofits, Tribes, cities, states, and universities for projects in disadvantaged communities.
Many of the grants are from three Inflation Reduction Act programs: the Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program, which funds nonprofit efforts to create new partnerships with companies, local governments, or medical service providers to address environmental or public health issues; the Community Change Grant Program, which supports activities that reduce pollution and increase climate resilience; and the Government-to-Government Program, which subsidizes state and local government pilot projects and other activities that improve the environment and public health.
They include awards of between $20,000 and $20 million for community gardens, solar projects, air quality monitoring, energy efficiency upgrades, wildfire preparedness, clean water initiatives, protection during heatwaves, rural economic development, and job training, among many others.
Just over 130 of the grants are reported as being “financially closed,” or having a $0.00 remaining balance, meaning the EPA’s claim that it canceled more than 400 grants may have been inflated.
There is also overlap with the list the EPA provided to the Sierra Club. Heatmap identified 18 grants that appear on both. For these 18 grants, the Sierra Club list shows that they were canceled on the 21st or 22nd of February. The list obtained by the senators shows that they were “awarded” on those dates, but labels them “financially closed” or having a $0.00 remaining balance.
In their letter to Zeldin, Senate Democrats asserted Congress’ power over the federal purse, noting that the law specifically “directed the EPA to distribute $3 billion to improve environmental protection in communities facing economic hardship.” An internal email from the EPA’s general counsel notes that some of the grants were terminated on the basis that they funded DEI or environmental justice initiatives that “conflict with the Agency’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in performing our statutory functions.” The senators’ letter argues quite the opposite — that these grants were meant to ensure a healthy environment for all Americans.
Secondly, they write that “any attempt to withhold these funds violates the Impoundment Control Act.” That’s a reference to a 1974 law that prohibits the executive branch from holding back congressionally appropriated funds without permission from Congress. The letter also admonishes Zeldin for violating federal court injunctions on President Trump’s funding freeze.
Lastly, the senators accuse the agency of knowingly violating the terms of its own contracts, citing an internal email from EPA’s Office of General Counsel which admits as much. The email acknowledges that many of the cancellation letters sent to grantees cited grounds for termination that were not valid under the grant contracts. At this, the Office of General Counsel essentially shrugs, noting that “no decision to retract the terminations is forthcoming,” and that grantees can dispute the decision or sue the agency if they want to.
The letter includes a series of 12 questions for the EPA, including requests for every termination letter sent to grantees and an explanation of what the agency plans to do with “the alleged $2 billion in federal funds ‘saved’ by EPA and DOGE grant terminations.”
In a statement to the Associated Press, the EPA confirmed that it received the letter, but that it has no plans to stop canceling grants. “As the Trump administration reins in wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, EPA will continue terminating assistance agreements in line with terms and conditions,” the statement said.
Here is the full list of canceled grants released by the senators, published for the first time in a searchable, sortable format:
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 skirting pollution rules, Arctic sea ice, and Empire Wind
Current conditions: Between 10 and 15 inches of rain fell across parts of South Texas, triggering severe flooding • Firefighters made progress containing some of the large wildfires burning in South Korea • It’s -7 degrees Fahrenheit at Greenland’s Pituffik Space Base, which Vice President JD Vance will visit today.
The Environmental Protection Agency has set up an email address that power plants and other industrial facilities can use to request a temporary exemption from President Trump on EPA air pollution rules. Firms can write to “airaction@epa.gov” and make a case for why their facilities should not have to abide by some nine Clean Air Act emissions rules, and for how long they’d like to be exempt. The president — yes, the president himself — will review the request and “make a decision on the merits.” The EPA argues that the Clean Air Act contains a section that allows the president to exempt industrial facilities from new rules for up to two years “if the technology to implement the standard is not available and it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so.”
The environmental protection community is not happy. “The new Trump EPA website invites hundreds of industrial sources of cancer-causing pollution and other toxics to evade science-based clean air standards that are designed to keep our families safe — all with a single email,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. “This puts the health of all Americans on the line.”
Sea ice in the Arctic is at its lowest winter level ever recorded. March is usually when the ice is at its peak, but this year’s ice cover of 5.53 million square miles is about 30,000 square miles smaller than the previous lowest March peak recorded in 2017. “Warming temperatures are what’s causing the ice to decline,” ice data scientist Walt Meier told The Associated Press. The Arctic is warming about four times faster than the rest of the world, and less winter sea ice means more melt in the summer. Researchers warn that current warming trends mean the Arctic could see its first completely ice-free summer months as soon as 2035. “We’re going to come into this next summer season with less ice to begin with,” said Linette Boisvert, an ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It doesn’t bode well for the future.”
Activists from the anti-wind movement are circling Empire Wind and asking President Donald Trump to rescind the EPA air permit to the Equinor offshore project, Heatmap’s Jael Holzman reports in The Fight. Two prominent anti-offshore wind organizations — Save the East Coast and Protect our Coast-Long Island — announced this week in a press release posted to Facebook that they were petitioning the EPA to take the permit away, just like it did earlier this month with the Atlantic Shores project off the coast of New Jersey. Activists have also asked EPA to get rid of air permits for New England Wind and Vineyard Wind.
Earnings call mentions of “climate change” and other terms related to environmental issues and clean energy have plummeted by 76% over the past three years, according to a new Bloomberg analysis. “Green chatter” on S&P 500 companies’ quarterly calls peaked in 2022, just before the Inflation Reduction Act passed, and has been falling ever since. Anti-climate sentiment in the Trump administration has hastened the so-called greenhushing. At the same time, most corporate finance bosses say they aim to increase their green investments, and more companies are making climate commitments. So some progress is still being made, even if nobody wants to make a big deal out of it.
The Internal Revenue Service this week reopened the online portal for car dealerships to retroactively register electric vehicle sales to the tax agency, Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo reported. The change will make it easier for buyers to claim the EV tax credit on their returns after a major change to the EV tax credit program last year left many in the lurch. Before the change, all dealers had to do was give the buyer a “time of sale” report that they could submit to the IRS come tax season. But as of 2024, dealerships were expected to register every EV sale that was eligible for the tax credit through this new online portal. Not only that, they had to do so within three days of the sale. The portal would not allow entries dated more than three days post-sale. Many dealerships were unaware of the new requirements, and customers trying to claim the credit on their taxes have been getting error messages saying that their EVs were not registered with the IRS. In a notice to dealerships this week, first reported by NPR, the trade group said the IRS planned to roll out an update to the portal on Wednesday to allow for sales made in 2024 to be submitted.
“If any of this has made you nervous about getting an EV this year, remember that you have another, safer option for claiming the tax credit,” Pontecorvo explains. “Instead of claiming it on your taxes in 2026, you can transfer it to your dealer, who can take it off the sale price of the car on the spot. Just make sure they know about the online portal!”
“Perfectly executed, Mr. Trump! … You have pulled off the rare rope-a-dope: Your political action groups raised more than $75 million from the oil industry to help get you elected. But now that you’re in office, you’re shutting them in. And the best part is that voters have no idea: Americans continue to think that you support U.S. oil and gas drilling — and they like it.”
–Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer in an open letter to President Trump, aka Degrowth Donald
A conversation with Frank Maisano of Bracewell
Today’s Q&A is with Frank Maisano, one of the most sought-after energy lobbyists in Washington. Maisano, a Beltway veteran who has worked in Congress as well, has a long history with me that goes back to the earliest days of my environmental reporting career. So when I helped author a story for Heatmap this week about the budget risks to the Inflation Reduction Act, he reached out and asked if he could give me his take: that our reporting missed the mark.
Naturally, I asked if I could publish the whole thing in my newsletter, because what good is a lobbyist’s words if they aren’t written down? The following is an abridged version of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
Frank, once again, thanks for taking the time to reach out and tell us why we’re wrong. Let’s start with my burning question: tell me why?
Well I don’t know that everything you wrote about is wrong, but I think historical perspective is important here. Unfortunately when you’re as old as I am, and have been involved in this game as long as I have, you know from things that happened before that everything is not new again.
When I worked on the Appropriations Committee in 1994, 1995 and Republicans took over with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, many of these types of budget-cutting plans were in place. At the time, Republicans didn’t have total control because Clinton was president, but Project 2025 isn’t just Project 2025. It was Project 2005. It was Project 1985. The Heritage Foundation has been making these proposals every year for the 40 years I’ve been around. I’d just want to remind people of the operational historical context for how Congress works and how folks have been trying to do this for years.
I was talking to somebody the other day and I said, Talk to me in December of this year. Because in December of this year, a lot of this hyperbolic symbolism and walking people out of agencies — all of this will be over. Congress will have spoken and we’ll have a better sense of the true direction they’re going in.
I’m not going to say there won’t be significant cuts. I suspect there will be reductions in government spending. But it’s certainly not going to be as harried, frantic, and news-splashed as we’re seeing now.
Do you actually think these Republicans who signed onto a letter defending the Inflation Reduction Act will stand by these statements when a final bill comes for a vote?
Are you asking if the 21 will stand by the statements?
Yeah, I mean, the point of our story was to say the budget math matters more than that and there’ll be a choice between tax cuts and saving more of the IRA.
Like I said, when we went through this in 1994, you would think the budget math mattered more, but it never does. Once people start lobbying and start advocating for their own constituencies, local projects, I think you’re going to see a significant trimming of the attitude.
There’s a few people who, budget be damned, will be in the ‘let’s cut everything’ book. I don’t think that’s a majority of the [Republican] caucus, though, especially when you look at provisions of the IRA. There are many provisions of the IRA that are how Republicans have done energy policy for years. There were provisions in the bipartisan infrastructure law that were how Republicans have done energy policy for years.
Has every Republican supported it? No. Are there certain loud voices on the budget hawk side? Absolutely. Do either of those sides have a full measure of support that’s going to pull someone like a tug of war over to the other side? Most likely not. There’s going to have to be an internal party agreement but also an internal congressional agreement which I think will tend to pull this budget hawk-ness further away from the absolute spending cuts they want to impose.
Do you think the administration’s views on wind, solar, or battery storage deployment will matter when it comes to the fate of the IRA?
They may have a specific view. But a lot of it is out of their hands. The market has made decisions already. Utilities, investor-owned, even rural co-op utilities have made decisions already in balancing their generation sources.
I don’t think any sort of administration policy to X one off or close it out is probably that viable. Especially in the sense where we need all the energy we can get.
Demand takes control of the policy levers. We saw this with the Biden administration on oil and gas where they tried mightily to reduce our output, but then 2022 came around and they felt compelled to push more development and then we had record development under the Biden administration.
I think we’re going to see similar energy trends in this administration with the policy levers the administration is less interested in. Let me give you an example: I think offshore wind is going to still be able to play a role in meeting that energy demand. Look at what’s happening in the Northeast, and in Virginia, where they have incredible energy demand projections. Offshore wind along with natural gas along with some nuclear are [together] going to play a role in how we meet that demand in the future. Even if the administration pushes back on offshore wind, [Republican Virginia Gov.] Glenn Youngkin sees it as a part of his mix and that is a powerful force. I see that offsetting some of the policy push preferences this administration might have.
I know in the ‘90s you were involved in navigating this, but I’m still wondering after all this if the budget math we brought up in our story and parliamentary procedure will matter…
It certainly does matter and it’s certainly one way to look at it. But Congress has a way of coming to a deal.
Mr. President, your commitment to radical climate and economic policy really does astound me.
Dear Mr. Trump,
What can I say? You astound me. You enthrall me. I am, in short, very impressed!
Why? Well, earlier this month, I sent you an open letter in which I confessed that I finally understood your secret plan. It’s true, I wrote, that you campaigned as a scourge of climate activists. You publicly called global warming a “hoax,” a “scam,” and something that you “don’t believe.”
Sure, that’s what you said. But, as I wrote in my letter, you have governed very differently. You are clearly terrified of climate change. Because upon being handed the reins of power, you have executed the extreme environmentalist playbook to a T.
You imposed a 10% tax on Canadian crude oil — which is the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil burned by Americans. You levied new fees on single-family-home building materials, putting an end to suburban sprawl. You even threatened to tax cars.
In short, you seemed to declare war on the dirty, polluting, carbon-choked American way of life.
Yet even as I sent that letter, I still had doubts. I even added a note of warning. I said that you are a much more radical environmentalist than I am — that while I want to see carbon emissions fall, I would never take the kind of extreme actions you are.
But since my last note you have plunged on. In the past few days, we’ve gotten new confirmation of just how committed you are to the radical climate agenda. You have taxed oil imports. You have declared war on cars like some kind of radical urbanist. You have hawked Teslas on the White House lawn. Even your diplomatic fights are bearing fruit: Your trade war on Canada has led to cross-border air travel falling by 70%, and your anti-European rhetoric has even started to drive down trans-Atlantic bookings now. Less tourism, fewer flights, less carbon pollution!
Last time, I called you a “Green New Donald.” Clearly that did not go far enough. You are even more opinionated, climate-crusading, and radical than I thought. You are committed to reducing the amount of stuff that Americans use — no matter where we get it from or what it does. You want to increase the economy’s material intensity.
You, Mr. Trump, are a DEGROWTH DONALD.
And the fossil fuel industry is just starting to catch on to the extent of your fervor.
How do I know? Just look at what the oil industry itself is saying. Every quarter, the Dallas Federal Reserve asks fossil fuel executives about the state of their industry. The most recent survey came out on Wednesday, and in it those leaders do nothing but whine. They hate that you are going much further than President Biden ever went — that you are trying to drag them into bankruptcy.
“The key word to describe 2025 so far is ‘uncertainty’ and as a public company, our investors hate uncertainty. This has led to a marked increase in the implied cost of capital of our business, with public energy stocks down significantly more than oil prices over the last two,” one of them writes.
Well done, Mr. Trump! Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have long sought to raise borrowing costs for oil and gas companies through financial regulation. But you have figured out a way to actually do it with your tariff agenda.
One of the most impressive parts of your energy agenda, Mr. Trump, is that you keep calling for oil to fall to $50 a barrel. (It now trades at $69.) You must know — because you are surrounded by expert oilmen such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright — that such a low price will hand market share to OPEC and cause American oil companies nothing but pain. You must have seen that in the same Fed survey, U.S. drillers said that oil had to go for at least $61 a barrel before they could profitably drill new wells in the Permian Basin.
But you and your advisers plunge on anyway and keep insisting on that magic $50 number! You are heroes. What’s so delightful, Mr. Trump, is that this is clearly starting to irritate the oil executives who helped fund your campaign. Some of them have even started to cut their spending on future oil drilling.
“The threat of $50 oil prices by the administration has caused our firm to reduce its 2025 and 2026 capital expenditures,” writes one of them. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ does not work with $50 per barrel oil. Rigs will get dropped, employment in the oil industry will decrease, and U.S. oil production will decline as it did during COVID-19.”
Another adds: “There cannot be ‘U.S. energy dominance’ and $50 per barrel oil; those two statements are contradictory. At $50-per-barrel oil, we will see U.S. oil production start to decline immediately and likely significantly.”
Perfectly executed, Mr. Trump! They are going to keep it in the ground!!!! You have pulled off the rare rope-a-dope: Your political action groups raised more than $75 million from the oil industry to help get you elected. But now that you’re in office, you’re shutting them in. And the best part is that voters have no idea: Americans continue to think that you support U.S. oil and gas drilling — and they like it.
The most impressive comment from the oil executives, though, is this one: “I have never felt more uncertainty about our business in my entire 40-plus-year career.”
Think about that. This executive has seen the fall of Communism, the Asian crash, 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, and the pandemic — and all of them pale next to you.
At the same time that these oil leaders are whining, you have plunged ahead with your tariffs on cars. These new fees are so complicated that many automakers are still working out exactly what they will mean for their supply chains. (More uncertainty! You dazzle me.)
But one thing is clear: They are going to raise the cost of new vehicles. “You're going to see price increases,” Ivan Drury, the director of insights at automotive research site Edmunds, toldUSA Today. “Virtually nothing goes unscathed.”
One analyst at Goldman Sachs even predicted that soon the average monthly price for a new vehicle could rise by $90. He said the tariffs are so unbelievably disruptive that there is no way they could become permanent. The hit to auto demand has already caused the steelmaker Cleveland Cliffs to lay off more than 600 steelworkers.
Mr. Trump, you really do impress me. I do worry about your popularity, though. I mean, are you trying to cause mass layoffs across the auto sector? If you keep this up, you might put the Democrats back in office — and you know what will happen then. I mean, last year, the U.S. produced more oil than any other country in history. I know you don’t want to see that happen again.