Latest news with #2022InflationReductionAct
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
EPA moves to claw back $7B ‘Solar for All' funds
Under the Biden-era program, money left the federal government and was distributed to 60 entities including states, nonprofits, tribes and local governments. Those entities were expected to use the $7 billion passed as part of the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to fund subgrantees who would help get the solar energy installed. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in a post on the social platform X on Thursday that he intends to end the program, known as Solar for All, 'for good, saving US taxpayers ANOTHER $7 BILLION!' He said in a video accompanying his post that 'very little money has actually been spent.' 'Recipients are still very much in the early planning phase, not the building and construction process,' Zeldin said. This is not the first time the EPA has sought to claw back Biden-era funds. It previously sought to claw back $20 billion in 'Green Bank' funding that, like Solar for All, has already been distributed to various organizations. However, since the prior effort, Republicans passed their 'big, beautiful bill,' which repealed 'unobligated balances' from the $7 billion fund.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump EPA pushes to claw back $7B in solar power funds
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will try to claw back $7 billion doled out by the Biden administration to provide rooftop solar power in disadvantaged communities. Under the Biden-era program, money left the federal government and was distributed to 60 entities including states, nonprofits, tribes and local governments. Those entities were expected to use the $7 billion passed as part of the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to fund subgrantees who would help get the solar energy installed. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in a post on the social platform X on Thursday that he intends to end the program, known as Solar for All, 'for good, saving US taxpayers ANOTHER $7 BILLION!' He said in a video accompanying his post that 'very little money has actually been spent.' 'Recipients are still very much in the early planning phase, not the building and construction process,' Zeldin said. This is not the first time the EPA has sought to claw back Biden-era funds. It previously sought to claw back $20 billion in 'Green Bank' funding that, like Solar for All, has already been distributed to various organizations. However, since the prior effort, Republicans passed their 'big, beautiful bill' which repealed 'unobligated balances' from the $7 billion fund. The law and the EPA's action could kick off a legal battle about what constitutes 'unobligated' money that is subject to repeal. Zeldin argued in his video that the agency 'no longer has the authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive.' However, at least some recipients are already vowing to push back. After the EPA's plans were first reported by The New York Times this week, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) released a statement saying 'Solar for All Arizonans belongs to the people of Arizona, and I refuse to let it be ripped away without a fight.' 'President Trump ran on lowering costs and creating jobs. Gutting Solar for All will do the opposite,' Hobbs said. 'I urge the Trump administration to reverse this reckless decision that will make our air dirtier, our energy bills higher, and our economy weaker. I will continue to fight for the clean and affordable energy future Arizonans want and deserve, and will not let the federal government strip the program away from the people of Arizona.'
The Star
01-08-2025
- Business
- The Star
Will China win the renewables race while US pivots to fossil fuels and nuclear?
US President Donald Trump's signature budget bill, signed into law earlier this month, marked a startling pivot towards fossil fuels and nuclear power, reigniting a fierce debate over how best to balance the country's energy future with its national security. The act, known officially as the One Big Beautiful Bill, rolls back Joe Biden era subsidies for solar, wind and electric vehicles – a dramatic reversal of long-standing US support for clean energy in a world racing towards decarbonisation. At the same time, the act preserves subsidies for nuclear projects, particularly fusion, which is framed as a dependable, low-carbon energy source and a long-term strategy to lessen US reliance on rare earths. Washington has described the energy overhaul as a strategic imperative rooted in national security concerns – especially after Beijing leveraged its near-monopoly over rare earths in the renewed US-China trade war. The legislation's supporters say it is a bold attempt to secure energy independence, arguing that the US must close technological gaps and mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities that could hand additional strategic leverage to Beijing. In this view, China's clean tech manufacturing dominance and control over critical minerals – essential to renewable technologies from solar panels and wind turbines to EV batteries – have left the US exposed to supply disruptions and geopolitical manipulation. Critics argue that the act prioritises short-term security and economic gains over long-term sustainability and global competitiveness – potentially ceding US leadership in the clean energy transition and threatening the planet's climate future. They also warn that the rollback of clean energy measures established by the Biden administration's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) represents a high-stakes gamble based on a strategic miscalculation. In an illustration of the intensifying competition, just days after Trump's bill became law, Beijing unveiled a state-owned behemoth with a registered capital of 15 billion yuan (US$2.1 billion) and a target to achieve commercialisation of nuclear fusion by 2050. Last week's launch of China Fusion Energy Co Ltd signalled Beijing's ambition to lead in next-generation energy technologies, with thermonuclear power widely regarded as an ultimate energy solution. The Shanghai-based fusion company is backed by a coalition of seven state-owned giants across the nuclear and petroleum sectors, including China National Nuclear Corporation, PetroChina's Kunlun Capital, and the Shanghai Future Industry Fund. Also last week, China and the European Union issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to shared climate leadership and underscoring the urgency of global cooperation in the wake of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement – for the second time under Trump – earlier this year. And at the Brics summit earlier this month, China joined the major developing nations – including India, Brazil and South Africa – in a pledge to 'intensify global efforts to contain global warming'. According to Li Shuo, director of the Asia Society Policy Institute's China Climate Hub, the legislative changes showed that the green industrial strategy previously pursued by the US had become 'politically unsustainable' in today's Washington. 'The rollback of subsidies for clean tech manufacturing and deployment will reduce domestic supply of these products and in turn dampen demand. This will slow down clean tech development in the US and underscores the challenges ahead for US decarbonisation,' he said. 'In recent years, Washington has opted not to rely on Chinese technologies yet. With what happened to the IRA, it will continue to struggle to develop viable alternatives.' Scott Moore, director of China Programmes and Strategic Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, said it was 'pretty clear' that Trump's goal of cutting US dependence on China in critical minerals and other areas aligned with his predecessor's approach. 'That objective has been present for some time,' he said, adding that the second Trump administration had been 'even more forward-leaning' and assertive on that front. According to Moore, 'one of the most telling examples' that the Trump White House particularly prioritises reducing US dependence on rare earths is the MP Materials deal announced earlier this month. Under the multibillion-dollar partnership deal, Washington has acquired a 15 per cent stake in the company, which owns the only operational rare earths mine in the US, Mountain Pass in California, supplying roughly 15 per cent of global rare earth elements. 'There are alternatives, but it's difficult to replicate the entire supply chain – especially the processing [that] involves highly toxic materials, which makes it challenging to get local approvals and overcome community opposition. But it's still possible,' Moore said. While the US could still narrow the gap with China on rare earths and clean energy, success would ultimately depend on cost, he suggested. Anders Hove, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, also highlighted the challenge of processing toxic rare earth materials as posing a critical gap in the US supply chain. Hove said the legislation's fossil fuel emphasis reflected deep political divides and ideological differences in the US that could be traced back to the oil shocks of the mid-1970s. 'Since the 1970s, the two parties have grown more polarised in their positions on almost every issue,' he said. 'But starting in the 2000s, the Republican Party began to oppose any action on climate change, and renewable energy began to lose its bipartisan character. At the same time, supporting coal became a symbol of the culture war, more than [something] substantive or strategic.' Hove – whose public and private sector experience in energy policy and markets includes 12 years in China and nine on Wall Street – noted that the US under Trump and Biden, as well as Europe, each had distinct strategies to reduce their reliance on foreign sources. 'The Biden approach was more similar to Europe's, in the sense of working with trading partners like Canada or Chile to diversify critical minerals supply – including processing,' he said. Sun Haiyong, a researcher at the American Studies Centre of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, observed that fossil fuel interests were a core base for the Republican Party, which often downplayed climate mitigation in favour of economic and political priorities. 'The current US shift towards fossil fuels is driven mostly by the interest groups behind the Trump administration,' he said, adding that the lack of competitiveness in clean energy equipment manufacturing was also contributing to its retreat from renewables. 'Most production capacity for wind and solar technologies, energy storage systems and other related equipment is concentrated in China, which also holds technological and production advantages in processing and raw material extraction – particularly for critical minerals needed in energy transition technologies like wind turbines and energy storage.' Sun noted that there were also 'short-term economic benefits' for the Trump administration in ramping up fossil fuel production and exports – including greater economic leverage over Europe and support for the increasingly unstable US dollar. Meanwhile, China is projected to contribute 60 per cent of the world's expansion in renewable energy capacity by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. The country produced roughly half of global solar capacity in 2023, while accounting for more than 60 per cent of global EV production. Tom Moerenhout, head of the Critical Materials Initiative at Columbia University's Centre on Global Energy Policy, said the US' entrenched status as a major producer, consumer, and exporter of fossil fuels was a driving force behind the sweeping policy shift. 'There's a refocus on those sectors,' he said, referring to renewed investment in natural gas power plants and internal combustion engine vehicles – developments shaped by both market forces and political priorities. 'The US is the world's biggest producer of both oil and gas – they get enormous revenue from that. They have deep market knowledge and strong technological expertise in fossil fuels,' Moerenhout said. 'It would make no sense for the US to suddenly abandon fossil fuels from an industrial or know-how perspective,' he noted, acknowledging that they yielded 'far more immediate cash than renewables'. Nevertheless, the refocus on fossil fuels is 'pure short-termism', according to Moerenhout, who described the legislation as a serious setback for US clean energy ambitions, with Washington widely perceived internationally as 'throwing in the towel' on renewables. 'I don't think [pulling back from clean energy] is necessarily wrong. It's just that the US is not going to compete globally,' he said. 'It's a very immature and problematic industrial policy if your goal is to be a player in tomorrow's world rather than someone left behind.' The new legislation is also designed to insulate the US economy by disqualifying products made with Chinese components or resources from federal subsidies – a move that has prompted several critical questions. Li, from the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted that with the scrapping of the IRA and the new legislation's rules limiting access to Chinese green technologies, the US cleantech landscape faced constraints on two fronts. '[The US] refuses to import Chinese clean technologies – as per Biden's original stance – and, with Trump's repeal of the IRA, it has also surrendered much of its domestic manufacturing capacity,' he said. 'This combination sets the stage for major setbacks in decarbonisation efforts over the medium to long term [and] marks a critical inflection point – not just for US-China climate dynamics, but for the global climate agenda as a whole.' 'The US is simply stepping off the field,' according to Li, who predicted that US-China climate relations would become increasingly asymmetrical. 'The US is retreating both politically and economically from climate action while China is gradually realising that decarbonisation serves its commercial interests,' he said. 'The long-standing global climate storyline, in which developed countries push developing ones to accelerate action, may well be rewritten in reverse. And we are only at the beginning of this shift.' The long-standing global climate storyline, in which developed countries push developing ones to accelerate action, may well be rewritten in reverse In Shanghai, Sun raised similar doubts about the long-term viability of Washington's pivot to fossil fuels, which he said 'cannot serve as a long-term energy solution for the US'. He said this was mainly because of the growing environmental impacts of fracking, the urgent need to address climate change, and the inevitable policy shifts driven by changes in political leadership. 'As for nuclear fusion, while the technology pathway is viable, its commercialisation is still a long way off,' he said, adding that construction of new nuclear power projects or the restart of previously halted ones in the US had long been plagued by delays, cost overruns and cancellations. Sun also cautioned against overstating the importance of the new legislation, pointing out that there were 'significant hurdles in advancing re-industrialisation'. The Oxford Institute's Hove shared this view, adding that nuclear power tended to get more expensive over time, while renewable energy was more likely to benefit from rapid learning and cost declines. 'Fusion plant [technology] is decades from being demonstrated at scale – presumably funded by the government – and commercialisation decades beyond that, if it even has any economic viability, which right now is a huge unknown,' he said. Hove also highlighted the impact of trade disputes on securing critical supplies from abroad, adding that slowing demand for wind and electric vehicles in the US was weakening incentives for companies to invest in long-term supply chains or upstream innovation. Moore, from the University of Pennsylvania, questioned whether fossil fuels should remain a long-term option, even if they could. He also predicted that wind and solar would likely remain central to the energy mix. In contrast, fusion, due to capital intensive and its dependency on specialised infrastructure, would probably remain a centralised power source, he said. Columbia University's Moerenhout rejected the notion that fossil fuels were simply a place holder until nuclear fusion became viable, noting that the technology remained a distant, expensive gamble that was often hyped by those with vested interests. 'It's not illogical to think fusion may eventually produce electricity commercially – but that day isn't coming in the next decade,' said Moerenhout, who described the legislation as a 'mixed bag'. In his view, small modular reactors are 'much closer to economic competitiveness than fusion', though they would still need real-world deployment to prove their viability. And while fusion and small modular reactors may hold long-term promise, meaningful cost reductions were already happening in proven technologies such as renewables and smart grid technologies, Moerenhout said. 'If you want to see where the biggest cost reductions for reliable electricity are happening, it's in clean energy [like] wind, solar, in demand-side management, smart meters, and so forth ... There the cost reductions are real. They're clear. They're visible. They're already happening.' - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
Newsweek
21-07-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows Which States Could See Energy Bills Rise From GOP Budget Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The budget reconciliation bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 repeals many renewable energy incentives introduced by the Biden administration, which analysts warn could limit energy production and increase costs for Americans nationwide. According to the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, the energy provisions of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" will raise wholesale electricity prices by 25 percent by 2030 and by 74 percent by 2035, while increasing the rates consumers pay by between 9 and 18 percent over the decade. In response to these fears, the White House told Newsweek that the bill will "turbocharge oil production," lowering overall energy costs and providing "further relief to American families and businesses." Why It Matters The projected increases in Americans' energy bills, which are already rising for reasons beyond the GOP's budget, will further strain household budgets, particularly in regions that have adopted or planned to expand their adoption of clean energy technologies to meet their electricity demands. In addition to rising energy costs, analysts believe the bill could also see hundreds of thousands of job losses, as renewable energy projects across the country are halted or canceled outright. What To Know The bill, signed into law after months of interparty debates and revisions, amends several clean energy grant programs enacted during the presidency of Joe Biden and via his flagship 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The budget pulls funding for clean energy programs and phases out various renewable tax credits, primarily by shortening the qualification window for wind and solar projects. According to Energy Innovation, the downstream impacts of the bill on renewable energy projects—many of which will be abandoned as a result—will "significantly hamper the development of domestic electricity generation capacity," resulting in a 340 gigawatt decrease in generation capacity by 2035 despite the simultaneous efforts to increase nonrenewable energy production. Their research found that the bill will raise energy costs for all Americans, but Dan O'Brien, a senior analyst at the think tank, told Newsweek recently that these impacts would "vary by state." This, he said, depends on each region's geography and potential for solar and wind developments, as well as states' willingness to support investments in such technologies without federal assistance. Below is a map detailing Energy Innovation's estimates for the annual energy cost increases expected by 2030 and 2036 as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill. According to the findings, Nevadans will see the most significant price hike by the end of this decade, with the bill adding $300 to the average $1,600 currently paid annually in the state. Energy Innovation said this significant increase is due to the declining deployment of new energy resources, which will result from the bill's passage. Nevada has long been a leader in incorporating green energy, with renewables accounting for 43 percent of Nevada's total in-state electricity generation in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nationally, these account for around a quarter of America's total generation. By 2035, Missouri is expected to see the largest increase of $640, followed by Kentucky and South Carolina, both at $630. "As deployment of new energy resources and advanced manufacturing decline under the bill, Missouri will lose out on significant planned private investment," the think tank wrote in its analysis, adding that the state will also see annual losses of $1.4 billion in its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, rising to $3.5 billion by 2035. What People Are Saying Dan O'Brien, a senior analyst at Energy Innovation, told Newsweek: "This bill will raise energy prices for all Americans. The impacts will vary by state. Some states in the South and Midwest have enormous potential for wind and solar development due to their unique geographies, but little state policy to back this investment. As a result, these are the states where we forecast lots of projects will fail and where dependence on increasingly expensive natural gas generation is likely." He added: "Much of energy cost inflation is due to increases in the price of power as fewer low-cost renewables are added to the grid. In fact, we find this bill will increase the inflation-adjusted price of electricity over a sustained period of several decades for the first time since the energy crisis of the 70s and 80s. Nationally averaged, this comes in at 10 to 18 percent increases for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers." White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers told Newsweek: "Since Day One, President Trump has taken decisive steps to unleash American energy and drive oil and gas production to reduce the cost of energy. The One Big Beautiful Bill will turbocharge oil production by streamlining operations for maximum efficiency and expanding domestic production capacity, which will deliver further relief to American families and businesses." Harry Godfrey, managing director and head of federal engagement at Advanced Energy United, previously told Newsweek: "As this bill has been debated over the past 6 months, we've seen pullbacks, particularly from domestic advanced energy manufacturing companies. "Those pullbacks speak to the upstream impact of this bill. Manufacturers, making multi-decadal, multi-billion dollar investments in new factories and assembly lines, are looking out beyond the horizon and seeing a shrinking U.S. market for technologies like solar inverters, wind turbines, batteries (particularly for EVs). So it's little surprise they're getting cold feet. They're the canaries in the coal mine." What Happens Next Beyond energy bills, the think tank estimates that the decreased incentives for investments in renewables will also result in a $980 billion hit to America's GDP over the budget reconciliation window, alongside around 760,000 job losses by 2030.
The Herald Scotland
06-07-2025
- Automotive
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' offers car tax credits to add to Biden's
? 2022 Inflation Reduction Act: The Biden-era incentive gives you up to a $7,500 tax credit for new, plug-in EVs or fuel-cell electric vehicles. Trump's massive tax and spending policy bill will end this credit as early as Sept. 30. ? "Big Beautiful Bill": Trump's new law offers an annual tax credit of up to a $10,000 on the interest of loans for new vehicles as long as they're less than 14,000 pounds and assembled in the United States. It covers purchases made in 2025 through 2028. Big Beautiful Bill 101: What you need to know about the new law How long Biden's and Trump's tax credits for new cars last Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them. More: What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers How to stack the auto tax credits Here's how combining Biden's and Trump's tax credits over the next four years could save you a hunk of money on an EV: A new EV might not be the best investment To be sure, this strategy might not be the best way to stretch your dollar. But perhaps you're set on purchasing a new EV with the latest gadgets and upgrades. The average price paid for a new EV this year has been $57,734, according to Kelley Blue Book. Even with the $7,500 tax credit, the EV premium over a gas-powered car is about $1,500. The math tips in favor of EVs when you look at the five-year fuel costs: $9,490 for gas-powered vs. $4,295, according to Kelley Blue Book. If you can live without the new-car smell, used EVs' average listing price this year is about $20,000 less than for new models, according to Kelley Blue Book. You can also get a $4,000 tax credit from Biden's legislation for a used EV, but that wouldn't qualify you for the Trump tax credit. Some additional fine print to consider if you use either of these tax credits ? Big Beautiful Bill: The tax credit for auto loans phases out for incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 for an individual and between $200,000 and $250,000 if you file jointly. It's not available for fleet purchases, commercial vehicles or leasing. ? Inflation Reduction Act: To take advantage of the EV credit, you also must buy the car - assembled in North America - for your own use. Your income must to fall below $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for those filing jointly.
