Latest news with #2022InflationReductionAct
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
3 ways Trump's policy bill hurts Tesla
Elon Musk has been feuding with President Trump over a bill the president is championing that, among other things, cuts incentives for electric vehicles and solar energy that benefit Musk's company Tesla. Trump said Musk's vocal opposition to Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is based on its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles (EVs). 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. … He had no problem with it,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars,' he added. While the bill may not be all bad for Musk – including preserving Trump's 2017 income tax cuts – it contains significant provisions that impact Musk's flagship company. It also rolls back green-tax incentives. Since he's stepped away of the Trump administration, the entrepreneur has been a vocal critic of the legislation, including lamenting that 'there is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar.' While the House narrowly passed its version of the bill in late May, it is facing hurdles in the Senate, where it is so far losing some momentum. Here's a look at the provisions that may be particularly impactful for the company – as well as other electric vehicle and climate-friendly energy companies: One major way in which the 'big, beautiful bill' harms Tesla is by making its cars more expensive. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act lifted a cap allowing manufacturers that had already sold more than 200,000 electric vehicles to once again be eligible for the $7,500 consumer tax credit. It also extended eligibility for the credit through 2032 The bill effectively made the cars $7,500 cheaper for consumers. But, the credits are cut in the GOP's bill. Without that credit, Tesla and other EV makers may make fewer sales. One major hurdle facing the adoption of electric vehicles is that they are oftentimes more expensive than gas-powered cars. However, Musk has contended when he was supporting Trump that he does not need the tax credit. Tesla Energy sells both rooftop solar energy and grid scale solar power – both of which are hampered by the Republican bill. The legislation axes tax credits for rooftop solar after this year. It also eliminates tax credits for any grid scale project that begins construction more than 60 days after the bill is enacted. Projects also need to begin producing energy by the end of 2028 to become eligible. These utility scale cuts are controversial even within the GOP and could face changes in the Senate. The legislation would eliminate a Biden-era regulation that forces the electric vehicle market to shift toward EVs. While Tesla is already all-electric, doing so could still impact its bottom line, as the way the regulations are set up, automakers either have to make their vehicles greener or purchase credits from automakers like Tesla that already outperform the regulations. If the regulation is weakened, traditional car manufacturers may not have to buy as many credits from EV-makers like Tesla. However, it's not clear whether this provision will make it into what's ultimately passed because it will first need to be approved by the Senate parliamentarian, which sets the rules for what types of provisions are eligible in legislation passed through a procedure that requires just 50 votes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19 hours ago
- Automotive
- The Hill
3 ways Trump's policy bill hurts Tesla
Elon Musk has been feuding with President Trump over a bill the president is championing that, among other things, cuts incentives for electric vehicles and solar energy that benefit Musk's company Tesla. Trump said Musk's vocal opposition to Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is based on its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles (EVs). 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. … He had no problem with it,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars,' he added. While the bill may not be all bad for Musk – including preserving Trump's 2017 income tax cuts – it contains significant provisions that impact Musk's flagship company. It also rolls back green-tax incentives. Since he's stepped away of the Trump administration, the entrepreneur has been a vocal critic of the legislation, including lamenting that 'there is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar.' While the House narrowly passed its version of the bill in late May, it is facing hurdles in the Senate, where it is so far losing some momentum. Here's a look at the provisions that may be particularly impactful for the company – as well as other electric vehicle and climate-friendly energy companies: One major way in which the 'big, beautiful bill' harms Tesla is by making its cars more expensive. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act lifted a cap allowing manufacturers that had already sold more than 200,000 electric vehicles to once again be eligible for the $7,500 consumer tax credit. It also extended eligibility for the credit through 2032 The bill effectively made the cars $7,500 cheaper for consumers. But, the credits are cut in the GOP's bill. Without that credit, Tesla and other EV makers may make fewer sales. One major hurdle facing the adoption of electric vehicles is that they are oftentimes more expensive than gas-powered cars. However, Musk has contended when he was supporting Trump that he does not need the tax credit. Tesla Energy sells both rooftop solar energy and grid scale solar power – both of which are hampered by the Republican bill. The legislation axes tax credits for rooftop solar after this year. It also eliminates tax credits for any grid scale project that begins construction more than 60 days after the bill is enacted. Projects also need to begin producing energy by the end of 2028 to become eligible. These utility scale cuts are controversial even within the GOP and could face changes in the Senate. The legislation would eliminate a Biden-era regulation that forces the electric vehicle market to shift toward EVs. While Tesla is already all-electric, doing so could still impact its bottom line, as the way the regulations are set up, automakers either have to make their vehicles greener or purchase credits from automakers like Tesla that already outperform the regulations. If the regulation is weakened, traditional car manufacturers may not have to buy as many credits from EV-makers like Tesla. However, it's not clear whether this provision will make it into what's ultimately passed because it will first need to be approved by the Senate parliamentarian, which sets the rules for what types of provisions are eligible in legislation passed through a procedure that requires just 50 votes.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big Oil Is Getting in the Way of Sound U.S. Energy Policy
Republican lawmakers are encountering a surprising source of opposition to reforming and rationalizing U.S. energy policy: Americas Big Oil companies. Before the dust had even settled on the 2024 national elections, CEOs at major oil companies from Occidental and Chevron to Exxon Mobil were laying down markers by warning about the need for continuity and certainty in climate policy. Many in Big Oil continue to recommend that the U.S. remain a party to the Paris Agreement despite the fact that many supporters of the accord openly pursue the goal of ending the very existence of American oil and gas companies. More recently, many of these same corporations have leapt to defend the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the massive spending bill signed into law by President Biden with its endless buffet of clean energy tax credits. The IRA was widely touted as the biggest "climate bill" in history and is now in the crosshairs for big cuts by the GOP-controlled Congress. In recent years, all the major oil companies have pursued plans to either diversify into lower-carbon energy businesses or lower their "carbon footprint." For example, Occidental is constructing its inaugural Direct Air Capture project in West Texas, where the company plans to scrub carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, bury it and then sell "carbon credits" to other industries. Exxon Mobil is building its own carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) system on the Gulf Coast, along with a new hydrogen production facility in East Texas. Chevron is adding both CCS and hydrogen capacity and ramping up its biofuels volumes. Big Oil is making some big bets on green energy science projects, all of which have one thing in common: None are remotely close to economical without generous government subsidies. Hence the continuing support for federal handouts. All of this creates the obvious "moral hazard" challenge, especially at the scale of subsidies in play. This dynamic is visible at the state level too, even in Texas. Since 2021 when Winter Storm Uri shut down the states grid for days and killed hundreds of people, Texas legislators have been scrambling to fix the underlying problem: Massive subsidies have fueled unchecked growth in highly intermittent wind and solar power, leading to underinvestment in reliability. In the current legislative session, Texas Republicans have proposed new reliability standards for all ERCOT generators that would effectively force wind and solar plants - both planned and existing - to invest in back-up power from dispatchable fuel sources such as natural gas and coal. In short, the legislation seeks to simply ensure that wind and solar operators pay their fair share of the costs imposed on consumers to keep the grid reliable. The Texas Oil & Gas Association and the energy-dominated Texas Association of Manufacturers have both been lobbying to kill this commonsense bill because it would raise the cost of many of the renewable power purchase agreements signed by these groups members. One could be cynical and suspect the opponents are eager to retain their green PR images at the lowest cost possible. Major U.S. oil and gas companies are failing to read the room. The real costs of going green are increasingly impossible to hide. Public tolerance is evaporating for the unintended consequences of trying to force a transition away from abundant fossil fuels. Momentum has clearly shifted and theres been a change in the "direction of travel" in energy domains, to borrow a phrase favored by the International Energy Agency. For the past two decades, Big Oils climate strategy has focused on being the last man standing in a net-zero world. Voicing public support for costly energy policies (including carbon taxes) is a key part of this calculated bet. Given their deep financial pockets, oil majors can allocate billions of dollars of capital for green indulgences to curry favor with government regulators and sustainability-focused investors. Smaller and private energy businesses dont have that luxury and are also disproportionately impacted by onerous environmental rules. Increasing regulatory pressure on faster-growing independent energy companies helps to raise their cost of doing business, and it tamps down domestic production, which is "good" for commodity prices. One could, again, be cynical. Since most small domestic companies dont have the ability to shift operations overseas, higher costs weaken their balance sheets and make them potential acquisition targets for bigger players as the industry continues to consolidate. This wouldnt be the first time in history that larger companies have used other issues as proxies to gain competitive advantage. The old patterns of brass-knuckled market fights of days of yore are just as likely to be a feature of whats really happening as are claims of concern for the climate. Call it climate duplicity. We are at a critical juncture in Americas energy future. Big Oil needs to be on the right side of history to try to help restore sound energy policy in this country. Paul Tice is a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics and author of 'The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System.'
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Calmes: The 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' is a big, ugly mess
The "One Big Beautiful Bill' is one big, ugly mess. We've seen false advertising in naming laws before — the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act jumps to mind. Yet no legislation has been as misbranded as the Republican tax and spending cuts that President Trump, the branding aficionado himself, is pushing along a tortuous path in Congress. Trump's appeal to many Americans has always been his purported penchant for 'telling it like it is.' But he's doing the opposite by labeling as the "One Big Beautiful Bill' a behemoth that encompasses just about everything he can't even try to do by unilateral executive orders — deeper tax cuts, more spending on the military and on his immigration crackdown and, yes, Medicaid cuts. His so-called beauty is a beast so frightening that ratings firm Moody's saw the details last week, calculated the resulting debt and on Friday downgraded the United States' sterling credit rating for the first time in more than 100 years. That likely means higher interest costs for the nation's increased borrowing ahead. Read more: Republicans head to the White House as Trump's tax-cut bill hits trouble And yet, in another example of the gaslighting at which Trump and his party are so adept, the White House and House Republican leaders dismissed the rebuke of their bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would spur economic growth — the old, discredited 'tax cuts will pay for themselves' argument. Speaker Mike Johnson said the Moody's downgrade just proved the urgent need to pass the big, beautiful bill with its 'historic spending cuts.' Which only proved that Johnson didn't read Moody's rationale, explaining that spending cuts would be far exceeded by tax cuts, thereby reducing the government's revenues and piling up more debt. The Republican Party, which postures as the fiscally conservative of the two parties despite decades of evidence to the contrary, would add about $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if its bill becomes law, according to Moody's. Other nonpartisan analyses — including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania, similarly project additional debt in the $3-trillion-plus to $5-trillion range, more if the tax cuts are made permanent as Trump and Republicans want. Read more: White House pushes for quick approval of 'big, beautiful bill,' but key hurdles remain No surprise: Trump, after all, set a record for the most debt in a single presidential term: $8.4 trillion during Trump 1.0, nearly twice what accrued under his successor, President Biden. Most of Trump's first-term red ink stemmed from his 2017 tax cuts and spending, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's costly response. 'This bill does not add to the deficit,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted to reporters on Monday, showing yet again why such a facile dissembler was chosen to speak for the habitually prevaricating president. 'That's a joke,' Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded. Worse, it's a lie. And no surprise here, either, but Trump's tariffs — another economic monstrosity that he's declared 'beautiful' — aren't paying for this bill despite his claims. Yet the president repeated that falsehood on Tuesday (along with others), when he visited the Capitol to strong-arm Republican dissidents, including Massie, into supporting the measure ahead of a House vote. (Inside a closed caucus with House Republicans, the president reportedly called for Massie to be unseated; the Kentuckian remains opposed.) Read more: Stocks, bonds and the dollar drift after the latest downgrade to the U.S. government's credit rating 'The economy is doing great, the stock market is higher now than when I came to office. And we've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff money,' Trump told reporters at the Capitol. Every point a lie. (This week provided yet more evidence that he's utterly wrong to keep insisting that foreign countries pay his tariffs, not American consumers. After Walmart, the largest U.S. retailer, said late last week that it would have to raise prices, Trump posted that it should ' 'EAT THE TARIFFS.' " He added: 'I'll be watching, and so will your customers!!!' This after a Walmart exec said that 'the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb.') While details of the budget bill shift as Republican leaders dicker with their dissidents, here's the ugly general outline, according to Penn Wharton: Extending and expanding Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which otherwise expire this year, would cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, $5.8 trillion if the cuts are permanent. (Mandating that tax cuts expire after a time, as Trump did in 2017, is an old budget gimmick to understate a bill's cost. The politicians know they'll just extend the tax breaks, as we're seeing now.) The bill's proposed spending increases for the military, immigration enforcement and deportations would cost about $600 billion more. Read more: Trump on Capitol Hill implores divided Republicans to unify behind his big tax-cut bill Spending cuts over 10 years, mostly to Medicaid as well as to Obamacare, food stamps and clean-energy programs, would save about $1.6 trillion. That offsets as little as one-quarter of the cost of Trump's tax cuts and added spending. Also, the bill is inequitable. The tax cuts would disproportionately favor corporations and wealthy Americans. Its spending cuts, however, would mostly cost lower- and some middle-income people who benefit from federal health and nutrition programs. Changes to Medicaid, including a work requirement (92% of recipients under 65 already work full or part-time, according to the health research organization KFF), and to Obamacare would leave up to 14 million people without health insurance. Penn Wharton found that people with household income less than $51,000, for example, would see their after-tax income reduced if the bill becomes law, and the top 0.1% of income-earners would get hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. Beyond that time, Penn Wharton projected, 'all future households are worse off' given the long-term impact of spiraling debt and a tattered safety net. 'Don't f— around with Medicaid,' Trump told Republicans at the Capitol, according to numerous reports. How cynical, given that he was pressuring them to vote for a bill that would do just that. All of which recalls an acronym that's popular these days: FAFO. @jackiekcalmes Get the latest from Jackie CalmesCommentary on politics and more from award-winning opinion me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
The ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill' is a big, ugly mess
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is one big, ugly mess. We've seen false advertising in naming laws before — the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act jumps to mind. Yet no legislation has been as misbranded as the Republican tax and spending cuts that President Trump, the branding aficionado himself, is pushing along a tortuous path in Congress. Trump's appeal to many Americans has always been his purported penchant for 'telling it like it is.' But he's doing the opposite by labeling as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' a behemoth that encompasses just about everything he can't even try to do by unilateral executive orders — deeper tax cuts, more spending on the military and on his immigration crackdown and, yes, Medicaid cuts. His so-called beauty is a beast so frightening that ratings firm Moody's saw the details last week, calculated the resulting debt and on Friday downgraded the United States' sterling credit rating for the first time in more than 100 years. That likely means higher interest costs for the nation's increased borrowing ahead. And yet, in another example of the gaslighting at which Trump and his party are so adept, the White House and House Republican leaders dismissed the rebuke of their bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would spur economic growth — the old, discredited 'tax cuts will pay for themselves' argument. Speaker Mike Johnson said the Moody's downgrade just proved the urgent need to pass the big, beautiful bill with its 'historic spending cuts.' Which only proved that Johnson didn't read Moody's rationale, explaining that spending cuts would be far exceeded by tax cuts, thereby reducing the government's revenues and piling up more debt. The Republican Party, which postures as the fiscally conservative of the two parties despite decades of evidence to the contrary, would add about $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if its bill becomes law, according to Moody's. Other nonpartisan analyses — including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania, similarly project additional debt in the $3-trillion-plus to $5-trillion range, more if the tax cuts are made permanent as Trump and Republicans want. No surprise: Trump, after all, set a record for the most debt in a single presidential term: $8.4 trillion during Trump 1.0, nearly twice what accrued under his successor, President Biden. Most of Trump's first-term red ink stemmed from his 2017 tax cuts and spending, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's costly response. 'This bill does not add to the deficit,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted to reporters on Monday, showing yet again why such a facile dissembler was chosen to speak for the habitually prevaricating president. 'That's a joke,' Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded. Worse, it's a lie. And no surprise here, either, but Trump's tariffs — another economic monstrosity that he's declared 'beautiful' — aren't paying for this bill despite his claims. Yet the president repeated that falsehood on Tuesday (along with others), when he visited the Capitol to strong-arm Republican dissidents, including Massie, into supporting the measure ahead of a House vote. (Inside a closed caucus with House Republicans, the president reportedly called for Massie to be unseated; the Kentuckian remains opposed.) 'The economy is doing great, the stock market is higher now than when I came to office. And we've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff money,' Trump told reporters at the Capitol. Every point a lie. (This week provided yet more evidence that he's utterly wrong to keep insisting that foreign countries pay his tariffs, not American consumers. After Walmart, the largest U.S. retailer, said late last week that it would have to raise prices, Trump posted that it should ' 'EAT THE TARIFFS.' ' He added: 'I'll be watching, and so will your customers!!!' This after a Walmart exec said that 'the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb.') While details of the budget bill shift as Republican leaders dicker with their dissidents, here's the ugly general outline, according to Penn Wharton: Extending and expanding Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which otherwise expire this year, would cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, $5.8 trillion if the cuts are permanent. (Mandating that tax cuts expire after a time, as Trump did in 2017, is an old budget gimmick to understate a bill's cost. The politicians know they'll just extend the tax breaks, as we're seeing now.) The bill's proposed spending increases for the military, immigration enforcement and deportations would cost about $600 billion more. Spending cuts over 10 years, mostly to Medicaid as well as to Obamacare, food stamps and clean-energy programs, would save about $1.6 trillion. That offsets as little as one-quarter of the cost of Trump's tax cuts and added spending. Also, the bill is inequitable. The tax cuts would disproportionately favor corporations and wealthy Americans. Its spending cuts, however, would mostly cost lower- and some middle-income people who benefit from federal health and nutrition programs. Changes to Medicaid, including a work requirement (92% of recipients under 65 already work full or part-time, according to the health research organization KFF), and to Obamacare would leave up to 14 million people without health insurance. Penn Wharton found that people with household income less than $51,000, for example, would see their after-tax income reduced if the bill becomes law, and the top 0.1% of income-earners would get hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. Beyond that time, Penn Wharton projected, 'all future households are worse off' given the long-term impact of spiraling debt and a tattered safety net. 'Don't f— around with Medicaid,' Trump told Republicans at the Capitol, according to numerous reports. How cynical, given that he was pressuring them to vote for a bill that would do just that. All of which recalls an acronym that's popular these days: FAFO. @jackiekcalmes
