logo
Trump order freezes funding for Illinois EV charging network, raises questions about other clean energy projects

Trump order freezes funding for Illinois EV charging network, raises questions about other clean energy projects

Yahoo27-01-2025

In its quest to get a million electric vehicles on the road by 2030, Illinois was counting on $148 million in federal funding to help build a statewide network of public EV chargers.
Now that funding has been frozen — and targeted for possible reduction or elimination — under a wide-ranging executive order that President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office.
Also in limbo: another federal program that was to provide Illinois with millions of dollars for public EV chargers.
'I'm very nervous right now that (the Trump executive order) is going to limit Illinois' ability to achieve its EV future,' said Brian Urbaszewski, environmental health programs director at the Chicago-based Respiratory Health Association.
If the federal funding drops or disappears, 'it really puts that (1 million EV) goal that we have in Illinois in jeopardy,' he said.
EVs and their chargers appear to be a prime target of Trump's 'Unleashing American Energy' executive order, but they are by no means the only Illinois clean energy projects that could be in for a bumpy ride as the president takes bold steps to reverse the ambitious clean energy policies of his predecessor.
The executive order pauses funds coming from President Joe Biden's signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, including incentives for solar and wind projects and a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for EV buyers.
The executive order also targets the opportunity for states to adopt California-style vehicle emissions rules that exceed national standards, an approach that Illinois is currently considering.
The executive order sets up a 90-day review period for clean energy projects funded under the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, after which agency heads will submit recommendations.
Illinois experts and advocates noted that there are still a lot of unknowns. Environmental Law and Policy Center Chief Executive Officer Howard Learner said Trump's power is limited in areas such as solar energy tax credits and EV tax credits, which were voted into law by Congress.
'No president in an executive order can willy-nilly overturn congressional legislation,' Learner said.
The president can go to Congress with his preferred policies and ask for changes, Learner said, but solar energy tax credits and wind production tax credits already have strong bipartisan support.
Funds for the Illinois EV charger network under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, on the other hand, are subject to more direct presidential control.
'Here the administration does have a degree of flexibility, and can decide, with regard to new expenditures, whether to move forward or not,' Learner said. 'If (the expenditures) have been congressionally authorized and appropriated, the administration has to follow what Congress has decided.'
Of the $148 million in money for an electric charger network that Illinois was expecting from the EV formula program, the state announced $25 million in grants in September for 37 projects with 182 new charging ports. Applications are currently open for a second round of funding, expected to distribute about $24 million in grants.
It's unclear how much of the money could be vulnerable under the Trump executive order, but Urbaszewski said the state has to first spend its own money and then get reimbursed by the EV formula program or the federal Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program.
That reimbursement system means money stays in federal hands longer, which could be a disadvantage if funding is cut off.
'That, and the fact that those two programs are specifically called out in the executive order — specifically — makes me a little nervous,' Urbaszewski said.
Asked about the effects of Trump's executive order on Illinois, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency issued a written statement saying, 'At this time, IEPA is not aware of any impacts to grants and will be monitoring the situation closely.'
At the Union of Concerned Scientists, Midwest Policy Director James Gignac highlighted another issue for Illinois: the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind incentives.
'There's a lot of development that's underway, based in part on those incentives. If they were to be eliminated, reversed or taken away, that could have an effect for sure on this area,' he said.
The executive order is not expected to have much impact on residential solar in Illinois, according to Illinois Solar Energy & Storage Association Executive Director Lesley McCain. The federal government currently offers a tax credit worth up to 30% of the cost to install a solar roof.
'The executive order does not impact (that tax credit), as it is part of the federal tax code, but we will keep a close eye on further developments,' McCain said in a written statement.
Urbaszewski, who supports a bid to adopt the California-style clean car and clean truck rules in Illinois, said those rules could help Illinois meet its EV goals if federal EV-charger funding were cut.
The rules, currently under consideration by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, would require that all new passenger vehicles sold in Illinois be zero emissions by 2035.
During his first term, Trump tried to rescind a waiver that allowed California to pursue car emissions standards stricter than the federal government's.
'This is all going to end up in court, and it's going to take years to figure out whether the U.S. EPA under Trump actually has the authority to take back a waiver once it has been granted,' Urbaszewski said.
In the meantime, he'd like to see Illinois adopt the California standards, which he said would accomplish the EV formula program goal of expanding the Illinois charging network.
'If there's a lot of (electric) cars that show up, businesses are going to smell opportunity, and they're going to build chargers,' he said.
The Inflation Reduction Act has spurred economic growth in both blue states and red states, and Learner said that solar energy tax credits and wind power production tax credits have strong support on both sides of the aisle.
Since the Inflation Reduction Act, companies have announced 751 new clean energy projects in the U.S., including battery manufacturing sites, new or expanded electric vehicle manufacturing facilities, and solar and wind manufacturing plants, according to a recent report from Climate Power, a strategic communications organization.
More than half of those projects are in congressional districts represented by Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Learner sees a parallel between the Biden climate plan and another high-profile piece of Democratic legislation: the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
During his first term, Trump vowed to repeal Obamacare, but the program developed bipartisan support as a wide range of Americans started to experience its benefits.
'Today, Obamacare is in place,' said Learner. 'There have been some ways in which it's been cut back or changed by the first Trump administration, and by some of the Supreme Court decisions, but by and large, (24) million Americans are now covered by Obamacare and the program has been successfully implemented.'
nschoenberg@chicagotribune.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republican attorneys general accuse California of excusing 'lawlessness'
Republican attorneys general accuse California of excusing 'lawlessness'

Fox News

time14 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Republican attorneys general accuse California of excusing 'lawlessness'

FIRST ON FOX: Nearly all Republican attorneys general blasted California's Democratic leaders on Tuesday in a joint statement, accusing them of condoning criminal behavior and saying they left President Donald Trump with no choice but to activate thousands of National Guard soldiers. "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," 26 attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." The attorneys general said Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard to address anti-immigration enforcement riots and protests that broke out in parts of Los Angeles County over the weekend was the "right response." Their remarks stand in direct contrast to those of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats across the country, who widely condemned Trump's decision to send the military into California as an unnecessary escalation. Newsom sued Trump over the move and accused the president of stripping California of its sovereignty. Presidents federalizing the National Guard, which is a state-based military force that falls under the dual control of governors and presidents, is rarely carried out without the consent of a governor. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who led the attorneys general in issuing the statement, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview he felt Newsom was "gaslighting" the public by saying California's local and state law enforcement had the unrest under control and did not need Trump to intervene. "We all saw what was happening," Carr said. "There were federal law enforcement officers that were being attacked by mobs. And in fact, I read articles where local law enforcement were saying they were overwhelmed and they needed help. My question is, why in the world would he not accept the help of the federal government at a time where there was mob rule, where there was arson that was taking place, where assaults were occurring, instead of coddling the criminals that are doing this again?" Carr said those opposed to the Trump administration's immigration raids could "peacefully disagree with what the federal government is doing." Newsom, for his part, alleged that Trump exacerbated the riots, echoing a position some criminal justice advocates take that an immediate show of force in response to intensifying protests is an ineffective approach. In Newsom's lawsuit, attorneys wrote that Trump's decision was not only unwise but also an unlawful and "unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Attorney General's Office for comment.

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

Politico

time14 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.

Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'
Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'

Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday that Democrats would 'welcome' tech billionaire Elon Musk 'helping us out' after an intense clash between Musk and President Trump last week. 'I think the Democrats would welcome him helping us out, politically, but — financially, etc.,' Granholm said at Politico's 2025 Energy Summit. 'But, maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I'm not running.' Last Thursday, a fight between Musk and Trump over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' earlier in the week escalated rapidly on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social platform. The president said the tech billionaire 'just went CRAZY!' and threatened Musk's government contracts. Musk alleged that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein on X. The public spat followed the end of Musk's recent service in the Trump administration and an alliance with the president that appeared to start off strong. Musk endorsed Trump in July 2024 in the wake of Trump surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Musk's administration service was marked by intense backlash from those on the left and Democrats over actions taken by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the federal government. Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen on Saturday said that Trump isn't done with tech billionaire Elon Musk yet. 'They're going to really go after Elon Musk like nobody has seen, ever, in this country, because they can,' Cohen told MSNBC's Ali Velshi.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store