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.
The Secretary of the Interior said he “absolutely” planned to appeal a ruling that lifted blocks on wind and solar approvals.
The Trump administration is not backing down from its discriminatory policies for approving wind and solar projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum testified to Congress on Wednesday that his agency would appeal a recent district court ruling blocking it from enforcing these policies.
“We reject the whole premise,” Burgum said during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing.
Since Trump took office, the Interior Department has issued a series of memos and secretarial orders that systematically disadvantage wind and solar projects. Last July, it issued a memo requiring that nearly all approvals in the wind and solar permitting process be subject to additional reviews by the secretary’s office. A subsequent order required the agency to prioritize permitting projects with greater energy density, meaning ones that produce more power per acre of land, and deemed wind and solar “highly inefficient” compared with coal, nuclear, and natural gas projects.
The policies amounted to an effective freeze on wind and solar development on public lands, while also stalling projects on private lands that require federal consultations, affecting hundreds of clean energy projects. By the end of last year, Democrats saw no point in negotiating on permitting reform if the executive branch could simply make up its own permitting rules. They insisted on limits to executive power before they’d agree to a deal.
Around the same time, a coalition of clean energy groups, including the Clean Grid Alliance, Alliance for Clean Energy New York, and the Southern Renewable Energy Association, challenged the agency’s actions in the U.S. District court for the District of Massachusetts. The Interior’s permitting policies “place wind and solar technologies into second-class status without providing any rational justification for such disparate treatment or drastic policy shifts — unlawfully picking winners and losers among energy sources, contrary to Congress’ intent,” the lawsuit claimed. The groups argued the policies were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. In April, Judge Denise Casper sided with the plaintiffs, putting a temporary injunction on the agency’s wind and solar-hobbling memos.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Representative Susie Lee of Nevada told Burgum that his policies have “created a total permitting mess” in her sunny home state, and asked him what the immediate impact of the court’s order was within his agency. When Burgum responded by denigrating the judge’s decision, Lee asked if he was planning to appeal the order.
“Yeah, absolutely,” he said, asserting that “the idea that a single judge could decide” how the agency conducts permitting “is absurd.”
At the end of her questioning, Lee reaffirmed that the July 15 memo was the single thing stalling a permitting reform deal in Congress. “If you would just rescind that memo, we could get permitting reform passed this Congress, and we can start to talk about permitting all forms of energy.”
Later in the hearing, Burgum also defended another of the administration’s controversial actions regarding renewables. California Representative Dave Min questioned Burgum on his deal to pay the French energy company Total nearly $1 billion to walk away from its offshore wind leases. Was that an appropriate use of money, Min asked, considering so many Americans were struggling with high energy bills? Burgum rejected the premise, asserting several times that the agency merely “refunded” Total’s money.
The state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.
The opinion covered a host of actions the administration has taken to slow or halt renewables development.
A federal court seems to have struck down a swath of Trump administration moves to paralyze solar and wind permits.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Tuesday enjoined a raft of actions by the Trump administration that delayed federal renewable energy permits, granting a request submitted by regional trade groups. The plaintiffs argued that tactics employed by various executive branch agencies to stall permits violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Casper — an Obama appointee — agreed in a 73-page opinion, asserting that the APA challenge was likely to succeed on the merits.
The ruling is a potentially fatal blow to five key methods the Trump administration has used to stymie federal renewable energy permitting. It appears to strike down the Interior Department memo requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on all major approvals, as well as instructions that the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers prioritize “energy dense” projects in ways likely to benefit fossil fuels. Also struck down: a ban on access to a Fish and Wildlife Service species database and an Interior legal opinion targeting offshore wind leases.
Casper found a litany of reasons the five actions may have violated the Administrative Procedures Act. For example, the memo mandating political reviews was “a significant departure from [Interior] precedent,” and therefore “required a ‘more detailed justification’ than that needed for merely implementing a new policy.” The “energy density” permitting rubric, meanwhile, “conflicts” with federal laws governing federal energy leases so it likely violated the APA, the judge wrote.
What’s next is anyone’s guess. Some cynical readers may wonder whether the Supreme Court will just lift the preliminary injunction at the administration’s request. It’s worth noting Casper had the High Court’s penchant for neutralizing preliminary injunctions in mind, writing in her opinion, “The Court concludes that the scope of this requested injunctive relief is appropriate and consistent with the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions.”