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:
To the tune of more than half the models delivered in the first quarter.
Americans might remain tepid on electric vehicles. But they are snapping up conventional hybrids.
More than half of the Ford Maverick compact pickup trucks sold last quarter had conventional hybrid engines, the automaker said on Wednesday, a sign of how rapidly hybrids and plug-in hybrids are ascending in the American car market.
Ford sold nearly 20,000 Maverick hybrids during the first three months of 2024, 77% more than during the first quarter of 2023, the automaker said. Those Mavericks made up the majority of the 38,421 hybrids that Ford sold across its line-up last quarter.
“We listened to our customers and want to offer them freedom of choice,” Jim Baumbick, the vice president of product development and operations at Ford, told me in an exclusive interview. “Customers can do the math — a lot of Maverick customers are very focused on value for money.”
The sales success comes as Ford, the domestic automaker that has been most enthusiastic about EVs, has intensified its focus on conventional and plug-in hybrids. On Thursday, Ford announced that it plans to offer a hybrid version of each of its gasoline-burning vehicles by the end of the decade. The company recently added an additional shift at its Hermosillo, Mexico, factory that makes Maverick trucks, and it doubled the production of full-size F-150 hybrid pickups.
In the same announcement, however, Ford also said it would push back the launch of its next-generation electric vehicle, a new three-row electric SUV, from 2025 to 2027. That suggests that the automaker’s current EV offerings — the Ford Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and Ford E-Transit delivery van — will remain its flagship electric vehicles for much of the rest of the decade.
“We know the destination: EVs are going to be a much bigger part of our product portfolio in the future,” Baumbick said a day before the announcement. “But we also know the tail on internal combustion-based products is going to be much longer.”
On the one hand, Ford’s sudden success with hybrids is unsurprising. Hybrids are a 20-year-old technology that cuts air pollution, saves on gas costs, and can improve a car’s performance. While hybrids aren’t nearly as good for the climate as purely electric vehicles, they can cut carbon emissions without forcing customers to seek out or install charging stations.
For those reasons, auto experts once predicted that hybrids would percolate across the marketplace like, say, automatic transmission or power steering — they were general-purpose features that would improve any car. But instead they are only now catching on, after the initial electric vehicle boom. Perhaps that’s because hybrids were long seen as the green or environmentally premium choice, and only the arrival of mainstream EVs has defanged hybrids as an option for more drivers.
In the interview, Baumbick noted that adding a hybrid powertrain to a Maverick or F-150 now adds only an extra $1,500 or so to a truck’s suggested retail price. “Our goal from the getgo on Maverick was to take a different approach, and it was all about the value. When we launched, we were really trying to lean into attracting more customers to hybrids, because we knew from all the research we had done that they were looking for value. It was a bit of a departure from how we approached it before as a premium offering.”
That idea of hybrids as premium persists elsewhere in the automaker’s line-up. A conventional gas-burning Ford Escape plug-in hybrid can be bought for as little as $29,495, for instance, while a plug-in hybrid Escape has a suggested retail price of $40,500.
For what it’s worth, Ford also reported strong EV growth in the year’s first quarter, but its raw EV sales totals are lower than its hybrid sales. The company sold 20,223 electric vehicles during the year’s first three months, an increase of 86% over the same period a year earlier.
The Mustang Mach-E, a family-friendly crossover that has emerged as the automaker’s best-performing EV, made up about half of those deliveries; its sales were up 77% over the year prior. The company also sold 7,743 F-150 Lightning models, 80% more than a year earlier. What’s not yet clear is whether these better sales translated into financial returns. The automaker lost tens of thousands of dollars for every EV that it sold last year, and it slashed the price of its most premium EVs further at the beginning of 2024. Ford will announce its quarterly earnings at the end of April.
Even as it has slowed its rollout of EVs, Ford has insisted that it believes they represent its future. The very first line of its press release on Thursday was: “Ford continues to invest in a broad set of EV programs as it works to build a full EV line-up.” But in our conversation, Baumbick compared the reasons a customer might buy a fully electric versus a hybrid full-size F-150 pickup. “If their usage is best suited to an EV, we’ve got an F-150 Lightning,” he said. But “if you’re towing for higher distances or longer weights, it increases demand on charging. That’s where a hybrid can be a perfect tool for the job.”
Here at Heatmap, we’ve argued that Ford should add a plug-in hybrid Maverick to its lineup, too — after all, the Maverick is built on the same underlying platform as the Escape. A semi-electric compact pickup could be the “forever truck” for many Millennials. So I asked Baumbick: With Ford now expanding its hybrid offerings, is there any chance we’ll see a plug-in hybrid Maverick anytime soon? He told me that the company doesn’t comment on rumors or speculation. Hey — that’s better than a straight-up “no.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A new letter sent Friday asks for reams of documentation on developers’ compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is sending letters to wind developers across the U.S. asking for volumes of records about eagle deaths, indicating an imminent crackdown on wind farms in the name of bird protection laws.
The Service on Friday sent developers a request for records related to their permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which compels companies to obtain permission for “incidental take,” i.e. the documented disturbance of eagle species protected under the statute, whether said disturbance happens by accident or by happenstance due to the migration of the species. Developers who received the letter — a copy of which was reviewed by Heatmap — must provide a laundry list of documents to the Service within 30 days, including “information collected on each dead or injured eagle discovered.” The Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These letters represent the rapid execution of an announcement made just a week ago by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who released a memo directing department staff to increase enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities.” The memo stated that all permitted wind facilities would receive records requests related to the eagle law by August 11 — so, based on what we’ve now seen and confirmed, they’re definitely doing that.
There’s cause for wind developers, renewables advocates, and climate activists to be alarmed here given the expanding horizon of enforcement of wildlife statutes, which have become a weapon for the administration against zero-carbon energy generation.
The August 4 memo directed the Service to refer “violations” of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to the agency solicitor’s office, with potential further referral to the Justice Department for criminal or civil charges. Violating this particular law can result in a fine of at least $100,000 per infraction, a year in prison, or both, and penalties increase if a company, organization, or individual breaks the law more than once. It’s worth noting at this point that according to FWS’s data, oil pits historically kill far more birds per year than wind turbines.
In a statement to Heatmap News, the American Clean Power Association defended the existing federal framework around protecting eagles from wind turbines, noted the nation’s bald eagle population has risen significantly overall in the past two decades, and claimed golden eagle populations are “stable, at the same time wind energy has been growing.”
“This is clear evidence that strong protections and reasonable permitting rules work. Wind and eagles are successfully co-existing,” ACP spokesperson Jason Ryan said.
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.
Along with Senator John Curtis of Utah, the Iowa senator is aiming to preserve the definition of “begin construction” as it applies to tax credits.
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley wants “begin construction” to mean what it means.
To that end, Grassley has placed a “hold” on three nominees to the Treasury Department, the agency tasked with writing the rules and guidance for implementing the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, many of which depend on that all-important definition.
Grassley and other Republican senators had negotiated a “glidepath for the orderly phaseout” of tax credits for renewables, the senator in a statement announcing the hold, giving developers until July 2026 to start construction on projects (or complete the projects and have them operating by the end of 2027) to qualify for tax credits.
Days after signing the law, however, President Trump signed an executive order calling for new guidance on what exactly starting construction means. The title of that order, “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources,” has generated understandable concern within the renewables industry that, as part of a deal to get conservative House members to support the bill, the Treasury Department will write new guidance making it much more difficult for wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits.
“What it means for a project to ‘begin construction'’ has been well established by Treasury guidance for more than a decade,” Grassley said. Under these longstanding definitions, “beginning construction” can mean undertaking “physical work of a significant nature,” which can include or buying certain long-lead equipment or components like transformers. Another way to qualify for the credits is to spend 5% of the total cost of the project.
A more restrictive interpretation of “begin construction,” however, could turn the tax credit language into a dead letter, especially when combined with the rest of the administration’s full-spectrum legal assault on renewable energy.
Grassley said that new guidance is expected within two weeks, and 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.”Grassley has a long history with production tax credits for wind energy, playing a pivotal role in their extension in 2015. “As the father of the first wind energy tax credit in 1992, I can say that the tax credit was never meant to be permanent,” Grassley said at the time. “The five-year extension for wind energy brings about the best possible long-term outcome that provides certainty, predictability and a responsible phase-down of a tax incentive for a renewable energy source.”
Almost 60% of Iowa’s electricity is generated by wind turbines, the highest proportion of any state, according to Energy Information Administration data.
Utah Senator John Curtis has joined Grassley in placing a hold on nominees, delaying their vote before the whole Senate, according to Politico’s Joshua Siegel. Grassley and Curtis, alongside Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, were unable to get a meeting with the Treasury Department to discuss the guidance, Siegel reported.