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:
He is not happy about the EV tax credit rules.

It’s not often you hear a sitting U.S. senator invite the public to sue the federal government — especially when the president is a member of their own party. But most sitting senators aren’t Joe Manchin.
Manchin continued his crusade against the Biden administration’s implementation of the electric vehicle subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act on Thursday in a hearing of the Senate Natural Resources Committee to discuss the EV supply chain. Since the law’s passage, the Democrat from West Virginia has become obsessed with the idea that President Biden is trying to weaken rules around domestic content in order to allow more EVs to qualify for subsidies and therefore speed adoption.
The law requires that the final assembly of EVs — as well as the manufacture and processing of their components and critical minerals — be done largely in the United States or any of its free trade partners to qualify for subsidies.
Though the timelines for compliance are spelled out in the law, the Treasury Department has been tasked with releasing guidance to clarify certain aspects of the rules. For example, over the past year, the department has proposed interpretations of what exactly is considered a “battery component” and under what circumstances a component or mineral will be considered to have been produced by a “foreign entity of concern,” like China. Though those may both sound like straightforward questions, the guidance clarifies myriad gray areas, such as what happens when a U.S. company licenses Chinese technology.
But at the hearing on Thursday, Manchin used his opening remarks to accuse Treasury officials of extending timelines for compliance with certain aspects of the law and watering down domestic content requirements.
“The administration is delaying deadlines we wrote into the law to remove China completely from the battery supply chain,” he said. “Vehicles that contain battery minerals and components from China and other adversaries can qualify for years longer than the law allows.”
Manchin warned that the administration’s “unlawful rules are bound to get struck down in court.” He then vowed to “support any entity that goes to court to correct the illegal liberalization of this law with an amicus brief.”
It’s true that the Treasury has taken some liberties. For one, it has proposed temporarily exempting certain minerals that are currently very hard to trace from the foreign entity of concern rules. But during the hearing, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyomo maintained that the rules were strict. He noted that the list of electric vehicles that are eligible for the federal tax credit has shrunk from more than 40 when the IRA was signed into law down to just 13 as of the beginning of this year.
Automakers have largely supported Treasury’s rulemaking. For example, the lobbying group the Alliance for Automotive Innovation welcomed the clarity provided by the proposed foreign entity of concern rules in December, saying that they struck a “pragmatic balance.” Autos Drive America, another trade group that represents foreign automakers operating in the country, also reacted positively.
Adeyomo testified that automakers have told Treasury the rules are tough but achievable. In response to a question about the need to deploy more electric vehicle chargers, he also noted that the administration will be releasing guidance on a tax credit for charging stations in the coming weeks.
To be clear: Manchin maintained that he was proud of passing the IRA and stood by its goals. His problem wasn’t with EVs, but rather that the Biden administration was “willing to bend and break the law” to implement its “radical climate agenda.”
Republicans, meanwhile, used the hearing to raise concerns broader about the risks EVs pose to the electric grid. Senator John Barasso of Wyoming cited a recent report that warned of waning supply reliability over the next decade due to a sharp rise in demand caused in part by electric vehicles, as well as the retirement of fossil fuel generators.
But David Turk, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, responded that EVs can actually be a solution for the grid because they add new energy storage capacity and are a flexible source of demand. “The fact that we're going to have a whole bunch more batteries out there, that we can determine when those batteries are charged,” he said, “that's actually going to be a more resilient grid if we incorporate that.”
This is unlikely to be the last we hear from Manchin about the EV tax credit. In December, he asked the Government Accountability Office to issue a legal opinion on whether Congress could overturn the Treasury’s guidance under the Congressional Review Act.
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 third judge rejected a stop work order, allowing the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project to proceed.
Offshore wind developers are now three for three in legal battles against Trump’s stop work orders now that Dominion Energy has defeated the administration in federal court.
District Judge Jamar Walker issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the stop work order on Dominion’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project after the energy company argued it was issued arbitrarily and without proper basis. Dominion received amicus briefs supporting its case from unlikely allies, including from representatives of PJM Interconnection and David Belote, a former top Pentagon official who oversaw a military clearinghouse for offshore wind approval. This comes after Trump’s Department of Justice lost similar cases challenging the stop work orders against Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England and Equinor’s Empire Wind off New York’s shoreline.
As for what comes next in the offshore wind legal saga, I see three potential flashpoints:
It’s important to remember the stakes of these cases. Orsted and Equinor have both said that even a week or two more of delays on one of these projects could jeopardize their projects and lead to cancellation due to narrow timelines for specialized ships, and Dominion stated in the challenge to its stop work order that halting construction may cost the company billions.
The decision marks the Trump administration’s second offshore wind defeat this week.
A federal court has lifted Trump’s stop work order on the Empire Wind offshore wind project, the second defeat in court this week for the president as he struggles to stall turbines off the East Coast.
In a brief order read in court Thursday morning, District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — sided with Equinor, the Norwegian energy developer building Empire Wind off the coast of New York, granting its request to lift a stop work order issued by the Interior Department just before Christmas.
Interior had cited classified national security concerns to justify a work stoppage. Now, for the second time this week, a court has ruled the risks alleged by the Trump administration are insufficient to halt an already-permitted project midway through construction.
Anti-offshore wind activists are imploring the Trump administration to appeal this week’s injunctions on the stop work orders. “We are urging Secretary Burgum and the Department of Interior to immediately appeal this week’s adverse federal district court rulings and seek an order halting all work pending appellate review,” Robin Shaffer, president of Protect Our Coast New Jersey, said in a statement texted to me after the ruling came down.
Any additional delays may be fatal for some of the offshore wind projects affected by Trump’s stop work orders, irrespective of the rulings in an appeal. Both Equinor and Orsted, developer of the Revolution Wind project, argued for their preliminary injunctions because even days of delay would potentially jeopardize access to vessels necessary for construction. Equinor even told the court that if the stop work order wasn’t lifted by Friday — that is, January 16 — it would cancel Empire Wind. Though Equinor won today, it is nowhere near out of the woods.
More court action is coming: Dominion will present arguments on Friday in federal court against the stop work order halting construction of its Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
A federal court has once again allowed Orsted to resume construction on its offshore wind project.
A federal court struck down the Trump administration’s three-month stop work order on Orsted’s Revolution offshore wind farm, once again allowing construction to resume (for the second time).
Explaining his ruling from the bench Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said that project developer Orsted — and the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which filed their own suit in support of the company — were “likely” to win on the merits of their lawsuit that the stop work order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Lamberth said that the Trump administration’s stop work order, issued just before Christmas, amounted to a change in administration position without adequate justification. The justice said he was not sure the emergency being described by the government exists, and that the “stated national security reason may have been pretextual.”
This case was life or death for Revolution Wind. If the stop work order had not been enjoined, Orsted told the court it may not have been able to secure proper vessels for at-sea construction for long enough to complete the project on schedule. This would have a domino effect, threatening Orsted’s ability to meet deadlines in signed power agreements with Rhode Island and Connecticut and therefore threatening wholesale cancellation of the project.
Undergirding this ruling was a quandary Orsted pointed out to the justice: The government issued the stop work order claiming it was intended to mitigate national security concerns but refused to share specifics of the basis for the stop work order with the developer. At the Monday hearing on the injunction in Washington, D.C., Revolution Wind’s legal team pointed to a key quote in a filing submitted by the Justice Department from Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacob Tyner, saying that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal offshore energy regulator, was “not aware” of whether the national security risks could ever be mitigated, “and, if they can, whether the developers would find the proposed mitigation measures acceptable.”
This was the first positive outcome in what are multiple legal battles against the Christmas stop work orders against offshore wind projects. As I reported last week, two other developers filed individual suits alongside Orsted against their respective pauses: Dominion Energy in support of the Coastal Virginia offshore project, and Equinor over Empire Wind.
I expect what happened in the Revolution Wind case to be the beginning of a trend, as a cursory examination of the filings in those cases indicate similar contradictions to those that led to Revolution winning out. We’ll find out soon: The hearing on Empire’s stop work order is scheduled for Wednesday and Coastal Virginia on Friday.