Why would Trump's EPA shut down the successful Energy Star program?
Nevertheless, during Donald Trump's first term as president, the Republican White House unveiled a budget plan that eliminated the Energy Star program, for reasons the administration struggled to explain. The industry backlash was swift: Exactly eight years ago this week, The Associated Press reported that more than 1,000 U.S. companies, including some of the nation's largest manufacturers, urged policymakers to preserve the program.
The AP's report added at the time, 'The program costs about $50 million per year to administer, while saving consumers more than $34 billion per year in reduced energy costs.'
In 2017, the lobbying campaign succeeded, and the Energy Star program lived to see another day. Eight years later, as The New York Times reported, Trump and his EPA are apparently eager to finish the job:
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate Energy Star, the popular energy efficiency certification for dishwashers, refrigerators, dryers and other home appliances, according to agency documents and a recording of an internal meeting. E.P.A. managers announced during a staff meeting on Monday that divisions that oversee climate change and energy efficiency would be eliminated as part of an agency reorganization. That includes the E.P.A.'s climate change office as well as the division that oversees Energy Star.
According to a recording obtained by the Times, Paul Gunning, the director of the EPA's Office of Atmospheric Protection, told employees, 'The Energy Star program and all the other climate work, outside of what's required by statute, is being de-prioritized and eliminated.' (The reporting has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News.)
An EPA spokeswoman did not confirm that the program was being eliminated. She told the Times that the EPA had announced 'organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency's core mission.'
Note, eight years ago, the Republican administration set out to zero out the Energy Star program through the budgetary process. In 2025, however, Team Trump is apparently taking a more direct and unilateral approach, overhauling the EPA's structure and scrapping the offices that oversee the project.
There is no constituency for such a move. Support for the Energy Star program has long been bipartisan — it was created under George H.W. Bush's presidency — and it's one of only a handful of landmark energy policies that have been celebrated by environmentalists and industry advocates alike. It costs almost nothing to administer, and it's delivered massive annual savings every year for decades.
The Times' report added that Energy Star 'has helped households and businesses save more than $500 billion in energy costs and to get rebates and tax credits, according to the program's 2024 report. At the same time, it has also prevented four billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.'
Even from a conservative perspective, this is precisely the kind of public-private partnership that the right has championed for many years. No one, in other words, would benefit from this kind of change.
So if the Times' reporting is correct, why in the world is this happening? By all appearances, it's because much of the modern Republican Party has embraced the idea that taking energy efficiency seriously is ridiculous. We've seen overwhelming evidence of this among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill in recent years — see the 'Refrigerator Freedom Act,' the 'Liberty in Laundry Act,' the 'Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act,' the 'Clothes Dryers Reliability Act,' et al. — and the same perspective has clearly been embraced at the White House.
There was a time when the so-called 'culture war' focused on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. In contemporary politics, however, energy efficiency has been added to the list.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Plans To Force Thousands Of USDA Workers To Leave D.C. Area
The Trump administration plans to push thousands of U.S. Agriculture Department workers out of the Washington, D.C., region by forcing them to relocate to far-away offices if they want to keep their jobs. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the plan in a press release Thursday, with her office claiming the move would 'better align' the agency 'with its founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry.' Rollins said the department employs around 4,600 workers in the D.C. area, but by the time the transition is over, it plans to have 'no more than 2,000' left in and around the nation's capital. It also expects to close most of its buildings in the area, including a major research center. The D.C.-area employees would be transferred to 'hub' locations in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah, the agency said. Rollins acknowledged the move would create 'personal disruption for you and your families,' in a video directed at agency employees. 'This decision was not entered into lightly,' she said. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing USDA workers, told HuffPost in a statement that the move would damage the agency. He noted that, despite common misperceptions, 85% of federal employees already live outside the Washington, D.C., region. 'But D.C. is the center of our nation's government for a reason, as it facilitates needed coordination between senior leadership and field offices and ensures agencies are at the seat of the table when decisions are made at the White House and in Congress,' Kelley said. He singled out the announced closure of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland as particularly misguided, calling it a 'crown jewel' for critical research. 'I'm concerned this reorganization is just the latest attempt to eliminate USDA workers and minimize their critical work,' Kelley added. The relocation proposal is reminiscent of a similar, controversial plan at the USDA from the first Trump presidency. In 2019, then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that two agencies within the USDA would be relocated to Kansas City to save money and place employees in the Heartland. The move crushed morale and prompted many workers to leave rather than upend their families' lives; it also fueled a successful union organizing campaign among USDA staff. Mick Mulvaney, who had served as Trump's budget director, later boasted about how many resignations the plan had spurred. HuffPost reported earlier this year on how that move was still dogging the agency and its mission more than five years later. A USDA economist said the relocation plan appeared to be little more than a mass layoff in disguise. 'We had a lot of people who had spent their careers working on very specific fields — very niche questions,' the economist said. 'And when they left, it was so sudden and abrupt that there wasn't time to bring in the next generation. You had to just leave all of your work and go.' Rollins argued that pushing workers to other states would benefit the agency's work. 'President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the beltway and into great American cities across the country,' she said. The proposal aligns with Trump's broader attacks on the federal workforce. Since taking power in January, the administration has gone to great lengths to push federal employees out of the government, either by firing them through legally dubious means, enticing them to leave through early retirement offers or making them so miserable that they decide to quit. More than 15,000 USDA employees took the administration's 'deferred resignation' proposal earlier this year, raising concerns about how it would continue to enforce food safety, administer agricultural programs and conduct critical research. In fact, so many chose to leave that USDA leadership had to encourage some to change their minds. Related... USDA Cuts More Than $1 Billion Earmarked For Local Food In School Lunches More Than 5,000 Fired USDA Employees Just Got Their Jobs Back Trump Has A Plan To Sabotage The Government — And It Worked Perfectly His First Term
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You're Thinking About Buying an EV, Trump Made Now the Time To Do It
If you've been on the fence about switching to an electric vehicle (EV), now might be the perfect time to make the leap. Tax credits for buying an EV were supposed to last through 2032, per CNBC, but President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' killed the tax breaks for new and used EVs. While the bill axed the credit, there's still time to take advantage before EVs become more costly. With the clean vehicle credit, qualified buyers can receive a $7,500 credit for new EV or a $4,000 credit for a used EV until Sept. 30 2025. The credit can reduce the cost of the vehicle by thousands; however, there are several restrictions to take note of. Read Next: Check Out: Here's what to know about the credit and why it might be the smartest time to buy. Clean Vehicle Credit Guidelines Not all buyers can cash in on the credit. According to the IRS, income ceilings stop at $150,000 for individual filers. That rises to $225,000 for heads of household and $300,000 for joint filers. According to Rob Dillan, automotive expert and founder of EVhype, there are price caps for vehicles, too — $55,000 for sedans and $80,000 for vans, SUVs and trucks. 'Fifty percent or more of a vehicle's battery must also be made with American parts, and the vehicle must be constructed with materials from the United States or countries the United States has trade agreements with,' he explained. 'These criteria will also rule out some EV models, so potential buyers will need to verify eligibility before purchasing.' In addition, the EV must weigh less than 14,000 pounds in gross vehicle weight, have a battery storage capacity of 7 kilowatt-hours or more, go through final production in North America, and be produced by a qualified manufacturer (excluding fuel-cell vehicles), per TurboTax. Learn More: Now Is the Time To Buy If you qualify, the credit could significantly lower the cost of buying an EV. 'The credit is going to make a big difference in cost, since the average transaction price of a new EV in 2025 is projected to be $56,910,' Dillan said. 'The federal tax credit is also likely to disappear in September based on timing alone, so now certainly seems to be the time for potential owners to move if they want to cash in on this financial bonus.' EV Considerations EV sales are up 11.4% year over year, according to Kelley Blue Book, with new models from Acura, Audi, Chevrolet, Honda and Porsche helping drive up sales. But before deciding whether an EV is the way to go, there are many things to consider. 'Depreciation is a big factor to take note of,' Dillan said. 'Some electric vehicle models hold only 49% of their value after two years, compared with 83% for gasoline-powered cars.' Reasons for the drop in value include battery life, limited charging stations, quickly evolving tech that becomes obsolete in older models and brand reputation, per Diminished Value of Georgia. With that in mind, it reported that the Tesla Model 3 and Hyundai Kona Electric are proving to have a higher resale value than previous EV models. Owning an EV will save you on gas, but Dillan said without the tax credit savings, 'the massive savings on maintenance and fuel bills are likely not enough to recoup the higher purchase price and possible depreciation hit of an electric vehicle.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on If You're Thinking About Buying an EV, Trump Made Now the Time To Do It Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Caisse's $3.2-billion investment in a nuclear project is the kind of deal Canada wants — too bad it's in the U.K.
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's $3.2-billion investment in a new nuclear energy facility this week is the kind of deal Canada is hoping the country's largest pensions and institutional investors will step up to fund — but it's happening overseas, in England, alongside the U.K. government. The Quebec's pension giant's 20 per cent stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk was part of a final funding push to greenlight the project, of which the U.K. government owns 44.9 per cent. Once completed, the country's first new nuclear plant since 1995 is expected to reduce carbon emissions and provide more than 60 years of 'clean, reliable power to the U.K. grid, helping to boost the U.K.'s economy (and) strengthen energy security.' The deal is noteworthy for a couple of reasons: first, it capitalizes on a renewed push for nuclear power as countries search for less carbon-intensive options alongside a more recent desire to rely less on imported energy amid geopolitical tensions and trade upheaval driven by United States president Donald Trump. It also comes in a country where the government's push for more institutional investment in infrastructure is being met with some success, both domestically and abroad. In May, ahead of publication of a final review that could impose investment quotas on large pension providers in the United Kingdom, 17 of them — responsible for managing about 90 per cent of defined contribution pensions — signed an accord pledging to invest 10 per cent of their portfolios in assets to boost the economy by 2030. This will include investments in infrastructure, property and private equity, and half will be 'ringfenced' for the United Kingdom, an allotment projected to inject about £25 billion into the economy. The consortium backing the nuclear project, which is the first direct investment in nuclear by the Caisse, includes French energy operator EDF, British multinational energy and services company Centrica and investment partner Amber Infrastructure. This structure is not unusual for the Caisse, a seasoned global infrastructure investor. But a key draw is undoubtedly the project's financing structure. The U.K. government will foot the majority of that bill — an important consideration for institutional investors because of the potential for cost overruns common in infrastructure projects. Officials told the Canadian Press that the Caisse would begin receiving compensation right away, and that there are agreements with the British government that protect the pension fund's return in the event of overruns or significant delays. The project financing is coming through the U.K.'s National Wealth Fund, which was created by Keir Starmer's Labour government. It replaced the U.K. Infrastructure Bank and is intended to be the government's principal investment vehicle, with the express aim of creating conditions to draw in private investors. 'It's an ambitious project in terms of size and complexity,' said Sebastien Betermier, a finance professor at McGill University, adding that the Caisse is arguably one of the world's most advanced investors when it comes to new infrastructure builds referred to as 'greenfield' projects. He credited the U.K. government's success in forging partnerships with private investors to a strong track record of designing regulatory frameworks for privately-operated businesses and 'de-risking' investments for institutional investors. 'In this particular project, I believe the U.K. government was able to reduce the level of construction risk for investors and provide a dividend yield early on,' said Betermier, who has done extensive research on pensions. 'This project shows it is possible to generate win-win opportunities for governments and pension funds in infrastructure (projects), and hopefully we can learn from it here in Canada.' Past efforts by the Canadian government to include the country's pension funds in major infrastructure projects have largely fizzled, with complaints that the government isn't offering up projects with enough size and scale. Furthermore, potential projects haven't come with sufficient policy assurances or guarantees that the private investors will be adequately compensated for the risks they're taking, particularly if they're being asked to participate in building them. An exception has been the Caisse, which has a dual mandate to support economic development in Quebec alongside meeting investment objectives to pay pension beneficiaries. For example, the Caisse was a major investor in the province's The Réseau express métropolitain (REM) mass transit project, which was beset by cost overruns. The $6.3-billion cost of the Montreal light-rail system presented in 2018 had risen by 26 per cent by 2023. It rose further last year, reaching $8.34 billion. While the project was also backed by Quebec and the federal government, the Caisse was responsible for overruns. However, the pension manager structured the deal to derive revenue from ridership, advertising and real estate development, with a forecasted annual return of eight per cent over 30 years. The Caisse is also unique among Canadian pensions when it comes to energy transition. In 2021, the Quebec pension management organization pledged to divest completely from oil producers, which could have given the Caisse an edge with the U.K. nuclear deal. Plus, in May, CEO Charles Emond told the Financial Times that the Caisse plans to deploy more than £8 billion in the U.K. 'in the coming years,' increasing its exposure in the largest investment destination outside North America by 50 per cent. In the article, Emond praised the 'clarity' of its business environment, the 'ability to execute deals' and its 'welcoming approach' to investors. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that Starmer dispatched Rachel Reeves, the U.K.'s chancellor of the exchequer, to Canada to talk up the investment destination last summer. This was followed by a cross-country tour by U.K. trade officials looking to partner with Canada's pension funds to address, among other things, Britain's decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, with the lowest levels among G7 countries. When it comes to enticing Canada's pension giants to invest more at home, Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be trying to change the conversation: his focus is on the need to create infrastructure and energy corridors to unify and strengthen Canada's economy and reduce dependence on the United States. During his spring campaign, Carney pledged to use $150 billion of government funds to kickstart private sector investment in projects ranging from housing, defence production and transportation infrastructure to digital innovation and patents, critical minerals and energy. 'Our plan is expected to catalyze $500 billion in new investment over the next five years,' the costed platform said, a similar if slightly less ambitious target than the UK's plan to draw in £3 of private investment for every £1 of government money. But there are a few things the Canadian government has to get right with its 'Maple 8' pensions, including the Caisse, as well as other large institutional investors such as Brookfield Asset Management (which had been a rumoured front-runner to invest in the Sizewell C nuclear power station), if it hopes to replicate what the U.K. government has done. For starters, Canada's infrastructure efforts lack both coordination and a comprehensive evaluation framework, crowding out private investors rather than drawing them in, Betermier said in a research paper on infrastructure banks around the world, published by the C.D. Howe Institute in May. Government efforts since 2016 have led to sprawling commitments of more than $180 billion for infrastructure projects spread over 20 federal departments and agencies, primarily in the form of grants and subsidies, he pointed out, adding that provincial governments, too, have tried to get in the game over the past decade. 'Having multiple grants and investment agencies operating in the same market means there is a high risk of competition between the agencies,' Betermier wrote. 'Coordination between these organizations, along with regular engagement with the private sector, will be critical in order to generate maximum engagement from the private sector.' Canada could also take lessons from other governments, such as using loan guarantees to underwrite the risk of projects, as is done in the European Union's under the InvestEU model. Other infrastructure banks allow projects to move forward with the expectation that private investors will come aboard in the future, while Canada's flagship infrastructure bank needs to secure private investment partnerships for a deal to move forward. Large-scale public-private projects are also hobbled by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for short- and long-run performance, said Betermier, whose paper compared public infrastructure banks in Australia, California, Canada, the Nordic-Baltic region, Scotland and the U.K. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, launched with much fanfare in 2017 and a goal of every government dollar being matched by private sector investment of $3 to $4 — a target later reduced to $1 to $2 — failed to live up to that promise. By 2022, a House of Commons standing committee on transportation, infrastructure and communities recommended abolishing it. A couple of weeks ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the infrastructure bank would disburse $14.9 billion in 2027-28, well short of its $35-billion target. However, the PBO noted that the $1-billion target for Indigenous investments has already been met. Among the many reasons for the struggle in Canada, Betermier said, is that most of the country's infrastructure assets – including airports, seaports, railways, and utilities – remain publicly owned by federal, provincial or municipal governments. This stands in sharp contrast to countries like Australia and the U.K., where Canadian pensions have been, and continue to be, big investors in infrastructure assets that provide diversification, hedges against liability risks, and offer opportunities for high risk-adjusted returns and direct value creation. Canada's big pensions are ready for airport privatization. Are Canadians? 'Not theirs for the taking': Can the Canadian pension model survive a new era of politicization? Another Canadian pension giant puts brakes on China investment 'The lack of infrastructure assets available for sale to (pension and other institutional investors in Canada) has become a hot topic recently because it is one of the reasons why Canadian pension funds have decreased their domestic investments over the past decade,' he wrote. 'For infrastructure banks to successfully catalyze investment in infrastructure from private banks and large institutional investors, Canadian governments must actively support and commit to a private-sector role in the infrastructure market.' • Email: bshecter@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
