Latest news with #45Q
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Evers & Sons Highlights Its Registered Apprenticeship Program Supporting 45Q Carbon Capture Projects
HOUSTON, March 26, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Evers & Sons Inc. is proud to highlight the success and growth of its U.S. Department of Labor Registered Apprenticeship Program, designed to develop a skilled workforce pipeline for the growing carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry under the federal 45Q tax credit initiative. Through a hybrid model that combines 3,625–4,000 hours of on-the-job learning (OJL) with 300 hours of related technical instruction, the program provides program participants with the hands-on skills needed to thrive in industrial construction careers. Training covers a wide range of essential topics such as concrete formwork, excavation, flagging, pipe fitting, iron working, safety, and equipment operation, preparing apprentices for work across facilities, fabrication, pipeline, and maintenance divisions. The program is currently administered in partnership with Associated Builders & Contractors Construction Training Center and includes a structured wage progression that rewards apprentices as they advance in their training and skill development. Participants also benefit from mentorship, classroom instruction (including NCCER Core), and real-world jobsite rotations on active CCS projects. "Our Registered Apprenticeship Program ensures we are investing in the future of our industry by preparing the next generation of construction craft laborers with the skills and knowledge to support complex infrastructure and clean energy projects," said Felicia Muzny, Human Resources Director of Evers & Sons Inc. To date, Evers & Sons has hired over 40 construction laborer apprentices and currently has 12 actively enrolled in the program. The company proudly meets and exceeds apprenticeship participation requirements on all qualifying projects and maintains full compliance with the Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and other applicable labor standards—demonstrating its commitment to workforce development, ethical employment practices, and sustainable industry growth. To learn more about apprenticeship opportunities at Evers & Sons or to become an employer partner in training the future workforce, please contact Human Resources at hr@ About Evers & Sons A third-generation family-operated firm, Evers & Sons Inc., is at the forefront of oil and gas construction. With comprehensive expertise in pipelines, gas and liquid plants, and fabrication, we offer services ranging from installation to integrity maintenance and even demolition. Rooted in Texas, our commitment to safety and quality has secured master service agreements with the nation's leading energy giants. The information contained in this press release is available on our website at View source version on Contacts For media inquiries, please contact:Stacy Wilkinson, Marketing ManagerEvers & Sons Inc.979-596-2139swilkinson@ Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Louisiana's carbon capture industry faces uncertainty under Trump administration
LAKE CHARLES, La. (Louisiana First) — Louisiana has steadily ramped up its investments in carbon sequestration projects, but with the Trump administration aiming to curb government spending and shift its focus away from reducing carbon emissions, questions remain about the future of the industry. Carbon capture technology began gaining traction during the first Trump administration and continued under President Biden, whose policies prioritized emission reductions. Louisiana has dozens of injection sites proposed across the state, with the first Class VI permits expected to be awarded later this year, allowing projects to move forward. Many of these initiatives are backed by the oil and gas industry, which sees carbon sequestration as a way to lower emissions and remain competitive in global markets. 'I don't think you can separate CCS from the larger American energy independence, energy dominance conversation,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. 'If consumers are saying that they want products that have a lower carbon impact on the environment, then these businesses will continue to invest to be able to deliver those products to consumers.' Efforts to put carbon dioxide underground face less support in Trump's second term Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from the air or industrial sources, compressing it, and injecting it deep underground into specific rock formations for long-term storage. A form of carbon capture has already been in use in Louisiana for about 50 years. Oil and gas companies inject CO₂ into wells to push natural gas to the surface for collection. The new wells will focus solely on storing carbon without extracting other resources. One key federal incentive for the industry is the 45Q tax credit, which rewards companies based on the amount of carbon they capture and inject underground. Gulf Coast Sequestration, part of Stream Companies, has three proposed projects in Cameron Parish. While the company currently does not benefit from 45Q, officials say the industry remains strong. 'Other credits that industry might try to use to transition to low-carbon fuels like hydrogen are all part of the mix of incentives that industry is trying to align with,' said Gray Stream, founder of Gulf Coast Sequestration. 'At the moment, [carbon sequestration] seems to still be supported. But my crystal ball on exactly what the new administration is doing is a little murky.' Louisiana is one of only three states granted primacy over Class VI permitting, allowing it to approve projects without additional federal oversight, which could expedite the process. 'The geology of what's underneath us is really attractive,' said State Rep. Brett Geymann, R-Lake Charles. 'We also have the existing infrastructure—pipelines, industry, and an industrial area that's already here.' Despite Louisiana's advantage, no Class VI permits have been awarded yet, over a year and a half after the state gained primacy. Some lawmakers worry that delays could cause companies to take their projects elsewhere. 'From an economic development standpoint, one of the beautiful things about CCS is that we do have this advantage in Louisiana because we were able to achieve primacy earlier than the others,' Faucheux said. 'We have the support. This began under a Trump administration. Governor Landry supports carbon capture.' Most neighboring states have applied for primacy to compete with Louisiana's growing carbon capture industry. The Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources anticipates awarding the state's first Class VI permit by the end of the first quarter in 2025. Carbon sequestration has been a controversial topic in Louisiana, often sparking political and environmental debates. Some proposed injection sites have faced opposition from local communities, with packed legislative hearings and public pushback against projects. Critics argue that carbon sequestration's long-term effectiveness in reducing emissions remains unclear. 'I believe the process is very rigorous and a lot of boxes have to be checked, but I'm not going to discount the fact that there are still concerns—and that there are legitimate concerns,' Geymann said. 'Some of those we may be able to address legislatively.' Carbon removal industry calls on U.S. government for regulation in new industry report Stream emphasized that extensive geological research in Louisiana has guided the industry's development. 'We have a lot of expertise, a lot of data, and an industrial economy in this region that emits CO₂ but wants to be less carbon-intensive,' Stream said. Stream's proposed injection sites are located on cattle grazing land on his family-owned property in a remote area. He said these projects will not disturb marshlands or significantly impact wildlife. The company plans to inject carbon beneath a thick layer of shale, which acts as a natural seal for the underground saline aquifer storing the CO₂. Geymann pointed out that companies investing in carbon sequestration are doing so partly to maintain access to global markets, where buyers increasingly demand lower carbon footprints. 'If you don't have a way to reduce your carbon footprint, it affects your ability to borrow capital and the interest rate at which you can borrow it when you're dealing in the global market,' Geymann said. While the Trump administration has not explicitly committed to preserving the 45Q tax credit or promoting carbon sequestration, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recently awarded West Virginia primacy for Class VI permitting, indicating continued federal support. 'So I think there are some philosophical differences about what the drivers of these projects should be,' Stream said. 'But that philosophical difference doesn't seem to really get in the way of understanding industries, customers, their export markets, and their investors.' On the state level, legislators have already proposed new regulations affecting local approval of carbon sequestration projects. Geymann anticipates a busy legislative session as lawmakers debate further CCS regulations and as the state prepares to issue its first Class VI permit. Louisiana lawmakers ask how local governments can earn more revenue from storing carbon Lawyer for Sean 'Diddy' Combs quits ahead of trial: 'Under no circumstances can I continue' AP sues over White House access restrictions Louisiana's carbon capture industry faces uncertainty under Trump administration Trump 'thinking about' absorbing Postal Service into administration Krewe of Ascension Mambo: What to know about parade route, parking, weather Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ag groups support 67% threshold for CO2 easements
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — There's another option for eminent domain as it relates to the proposed carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline in South Dakota. The South Dakota Farm Bureau (SDFB) and the South Dakota Corn Growers Association (SDCGA) said they support a legislative proposal that would require CO2 pipeline companies secure voluntary easements for at least 67% of the pipeline before invoking eminent domain. Those provisions are now proposed in an amended version of Senate Bill 198, whose prime sponsor now is Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff. He chairs the Senate State Affairs Committee, which recommended on a 5-3 vote this week that the full Senate approve SB 198. A key piece of Mehlhaff's bill is that it would apply to any party seeking to use eminent domain to route a project across someone else's property. The full Senate is scheduled to debate SB 198 today. SD Senate votes to maintain child marriage A news release from both agriculture organizations cites House Bill 1052 which passed 49 to 19 in the House on Jan. 27. HB1052 would prohibit the use of eminent domain for a pipeline that carries carbon oxide. Senate passage of SB 198 this afternoon would mean each legislative chamber has its own version of how to reform eminent domain. Landowner rights and eminent domain as it relates to CO2 pipelines have been the subject of much discussion for several years as originally, two companies proposed CO2 pipelines that would travel through the state. As of Friday, Summit Carbon Solutions is the only company that has proposed a CO2 pipeline in the state. A few hundred miles of a CO2 pipeline would travel through the state as it gathers CO2 from partner ethanol plants for planned burial in North Dakota. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission will hold evidentiary hearings on the proposed project in August. On Wednesday, Senate Bill 49 which would have prohibited the exercise of the right of eminent domain for the construction of certain facilities and address the preemption of zoning requirement failed in the Senate State Affairs. The legislative list of bills for 2025 also included several other eminent domain or pipeline-related bills. Discussions on HB1052 on Jan. 27 included comments about the safety concerns of CO2 pipelines, how the federal government doesn't have money to support tax credits and similar for projects like CO2 sequestration. Those against HB1052 said the pipeline will have a positive economic impact, it will protect the ethanol industry because it will reduce the industry's carbon footprint and allow it to sell more fuel in carbon-restrictive markets. The summit will use 45Q for its proposed pipeline. The 45Q program is a tax credit program for carbon sequestration or carbon capture. Not only are those in the ethanol industry interested in 45Q, oil industry companies are also interested. Within industry media, there is discussion about oil industry investment in carbon capture. Other discussion includes states pursuing permits for CO2 sequestration wells. A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush's presidency and in 2025, it has billions of dollars attached to it. Some early indications are that the Trump Administration favors carbon capture. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum mentioned carbon capture in his confirmation testimony. Burgum is the former governor of North Dakota. President Donald Trump expanded use of 45Q during his first term in office. Capitol Bureau reporter Bob Mercer contributed to this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
One Climate Subsidy That Trump Could Get Behind
The Trump administration is fully engaged in a drive to eliminate virtually any government activity or mention related to climate change—with a few notable exceptions. Take, for example, a single tax credit in Joe Biden's signature climate law that may have the best chance of survival out of any climate-coded policy. A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, known as 45Q, enlarged a tax credit for any company willing to capture carbon dioxide. A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush's presidency, and in its current iteration, it represents billions of dollars in federal incentives. If the Trump administration moves to keep 45Q intact, that choice would be an unusual vote of confidence from the president for a large government expenditure billed as a way to fight climate change. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) The politics of this tax credit are unusual in the climate world too. Both the oil industry and some climate-minded Democrats in Congress want to keep it. Among its opponents are environmental groups, as well as avid Donald Trump supporters in South Dakota and other states where carbon-capture infrastructure would be built. Only in recent years has carbon-capture technology made a name for itself as a climate solution. But it was—and remains—primarily a way to produce more oil. The version meant to help mitigate climate change, by storing carbon in the ground virtually forever, might have made sense when instituted alongside many other climate policies. But as a stand-alone measure, carbon capture starts looking more like a handout to the oil industry. The climate argument for carbon capture goes like this: If one ton of carbon is captured from an industrial process, such as a refinery, and then injected into underground formations, that's theoretically one ton less carbon added to the atmosphere, where it would have warmed the planet. This process, however, is both expensive and unprofitable. The IRA tried to solve that problem with 45Q, which raised the maximum tax credit for every ton of carbon dioxide a company captured from $50 to $85, if the intent was to store it forever, or $60, if the intent was to produce more oil—which was carbon capture's original purpose. In the 1970s, after the OPEC crisis, the oil industry began to look for new methods to milk existing wells for all they were worth. One method was to inject carbon dioxide underground, where it would act as a solvent, liberating the more stubborn oil residues in otherwise-depleted wells. Today, some 4 percent of American oil is produced with this technique, and the majority of all carbon captured from any industry is used to produce more oil and gas. The price difference in the tax credit was meant to boost the climate-solution version of carbon capture. But critics say the smaller credit, for enhanced oil recovery, is a generous subsidy to the oil industry, which also ends up with a valuable product to sell. And the product potential is enormous: The Department of Energy has said that, if carbon capture was used to its fullest extent to enhance oil recovery, the American petroleum industry could extract the equivalent of 38 years' worth of the country's current crude-oil supply. 45Q has many admirers: Oil-and-gas-industry giants such as Exxon and Shell are all in on carbon capture, and Doug Burgum, Trump's interior secretary, is a big fan of the technology. Losing the credit—which represents billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars that the government is giving up in tax revenues—would be such a blow to the nascent industry that it 'would effectively cut it off at the knees,' Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, told me. And if the credit does survive, it may benefit the oil industry even more: Republican senators just introduced a bill to raise the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery to the same level as the one for long-term carbon storage. The tax credit also still has fans among Democrats who see it as a way for the country to cut down on its emissions. Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, was an author of the IRA energy-tax package, and 'is strongly supportive of this credit and is already working to defend it from Republican attacks,' Ryan Carey, a communications director with the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, told me. But many environmental groups think carbon capture and storage is a false solution. Although carbon capture and storage is widely said to be necessary to combat climate change in a world where burning fossil fuels continues, as of now, the technology to store carbon long enough to keep it out of the atmosphere permanently hasn't been proved reliable at scale. Even projects held up as success stories encounter unexpected problems with keeping highly volatile carbon dioxide in place underground. Communities in the path of carbon capture projects also worry about the safety of the pipeline expansion. To transport highly pressurized carbon dioxide from the places it would be captured—such as ethanol plants and refineries—to wells for storage, the country would need to build a lot of new pipelines. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas, and at high enough concentrations, it's an asphyxiant. If a pipe were to burst, no one might know for a while. The gas is also heavier than air, so it would hug the ground and roll downhill, choking off the oxygen of whoever is in its path. (This happened in 2020, in Satartia, Mississippi; 45 people were hospitalized.) Karla Lems, a Republican representative from South Dakota, voted for Trump and considers herself a conservative. She is among the most vocal opponents of a pipeline that the company Summit Carbon Solutions plans to build across her state and four others, to bring carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to a storage site in North Dakota. The company is attempting to use eminent domain to clear its way, which incensed Lems. 'George Washington said freedom and property rights are inseparable,' she told me. She sponsored a bill now making its way through the state legislature to bar eminent domain for carbon projects. (For a while, Summit planned to put it directly through her family's farmland, but the company eventually decided to site it on her neighbor's land instead, she told me. Summit declined to comment for this story.) To Lems, the 45Q tax credit is exactly the type of handout and government bloat that Trump promised to eliminate. 'In my mind, this is a company that stands to make a lot of money from this project, which I believe is just a grift on the taxpayers," she told me. 'It's all a big boondoggle and a scam. We'll see if the Trump administration can see it for what it is.' Chase Jensen, an organizer at Dakota Rural Action, which is also working to block the Summit pipeline, says many of his group's dues-paying members voted for Trump and would see it as a betrayal if he decided to keep the tax credit. Many assumed Trump would be against it, given its presentation as a Biden-branded climate solution, he told me. But more than that, he said, 'these folks hold property rights as one of the most core rights.' That those rights would be traded so that, as they see it, a corporation could make money would violate their deepest conservative values. Already, the Summit-pipeline fight has 'completely restructured' leadership in South Dakota, Jensen said; 11 Republican representatives who had voted for pro-pipeline legislation lost primary elections for state House and Senate seats. Jensen expects that the Trump administration's stance on 45Q will be disillusioning for supporters who might have expected the president to side with people over corporations. 'People are going to have to reconcile what's happening,' he said. (Summit has said that the project would need 'reassessment' if the tax credit were repealed.) So far, the U.S. has relatively few carbon-dioxide pipelines—just 5,300 miles' worth, compared with roughly 3 million miles of natural-gas pipelines. But the Department of Energy predicts that could grow substantially. Without the tax credit, much of that growth would likely be out of the question. With it, the administration could be setting itself up for a new fight that unites climate activists with aggrieved landowners. In some ways, the politics of this fight look familiar: After the Obama administration failed to pass climate legislation in 2010, the climate movement started making common cause with conservative landowners in Nebraska and other states that the oil pipeline Keystone XL was set to cross. (Some of the same players are fighting the Summit pipeline now.) That fight continued through the entire first Trump administration, and ended only when Biden blocked the project. Now the Trump administration is reportedly looking at resuscitating that pipeline project too. In its first weeks, the second Trump administration has rerun the attacks on climate policy from its first go-round—leaving the Paris Agreement, stripping climate information from public view—but has also taken them further, culling any federal employees and programs that have a whiff of promoting environmental justice. 45Q presents a challenge: Conspicuously preserve a program billed as a Biden-era climate solution, or axe something with bipartisan support that the oil industry—which contains some of Trump's most important business allies—wants to keep? Already, the administration has appeared to selectively protect at least one big Biden-era climate project in Montana—the expansion of a plant making sustainable jet fuel—after a Republican senator pressed the White House to release the funds. This administration might be skeptical of both big government and climate science, but that ideology can be bent for the right backers. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
19-02-2025
- Business
- Atlantic
One Climate Subsidy That Trump Could Get Behind
The Trump administration is fully engaged in a drive to eliminate virtually any government activity or mention related to climate change—with a few notable exceptions. Take, for example, a single tax credit in Joe Biden's signature climate law that may have the best chance of survival out of any climate-coded policy. A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, known as 45Q, enlarged a tax credit for any company willing to capture carbon dioxide. A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush's presidency, and in its current iteration, it represents billions of dollars in federal incentives. If the Trump administration moves to keep 45Q intact, that choice would be an unusual vote of confidence from the president for a large government expenditure billed as a way to fight climate change. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) The politics of this tax credit are unusual in the climate world too. Both the oil industry and some climate-minded Democrats in Congress want to keep it. Among its opponents are environmental groups, as well as avid Donald Trump supporters in South Dakota and other states where carbon-capture infrastructure would be built. Only in recent years has carbon-capture technology made a name for itself as a climate solution. But it was—and remains—primarily a way to produce more oil. The version meant to help mitigate climate change, by storing carbon in the ground virtually forever, might have made sense when instituted alongside many other climate policies. But as a stand-alone measure, carbon capture starts looking more like a handout to the oil industry. The climate argument for carbon capture goes like this: If one ton of carbon is captured from an industrial process, such as a refinery, and then injected into underground formations, that's theoretically one ton less carbon added to the atmosphere, where it would have warmed the planet. This process, however, is both expensive and unprofitable. The IRA tried to solve that problem with 45Q, which raised the maximum tax credit for every ton of carbon dioxide a company captured from $50 to $85, if the intent was to store it forever, or $60, if the intent was to produce more oil—which was carbon capture's original purpose. In the 1970s, after the OPEC crisis, the oil industry began to look for new methods to milk existing wells for all they were worth. One method was to inject carbon dioxide underground, where it would act as a solvent, liberating the more stubborn oil residues in otherwise-depleted wells. Today, some 4 percent of American oil is produced with this technique, and the majority of all carbon captured from any industry is used to produce more oil and gas. The price difference in the tax credit was meant to boost the climate-solution version of carbon capture. But critics say the smaller credit, for enhanced oil recovery, is a generous subsidy to the oil industry, which also ends up with a valuable product to sell. And the product potential is enormous: The Department of Energy has said that, if carbon capture was used to its fullest extent to enhance oil recovery, the American petroleum industry could extract the equivalent of 38 years' worth of the country's current crude-oil supply. 45Q has many admirers: Oil-and-gas-industry giants such as Exxon and Shell are all in on carbon capture, and Doug Burgum, Trump's interior secretary, is a big fan of the technology. Losing the credit—which represents billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars that the government is giving up in tax revenues—would be such a blow to the nascent industry that it 'would effectively cut it off at the knees,' Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, told me. And if the credit does survive, it may benefit the oil industry even more: Republican senators just introduced a bill to raise the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery to the same level as the one for long-term carbon storage. The tax credit also still has fans among Democrats who see it as a way for the country to cut down on its emissions. Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, was an author of the IRA energy-tax package, and 'is strongly supportive of this credit and is already working to defend it from Republican attacks,' Ryan Carey, a communications director with the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, told me. But many environmental groups think carbon capture and storage is a false solution. Although carbon capture and storage is widely said to be necessary to combat climate change in a world where burning fossil fuels continues, as of now, the technology to store carbon long enough to keep it out of the atmosphere permanently hasn't been proved reliable at scale. Even projects held up as success stories encounter unexpected problems with keeping highly volatile carbon dioxide in place underground. Communities in the path of carbon capture projects also worry about the safety of the pipeline expansion. To transport highly pressurized carbon dioxide from the places it would be captured—such as ethanol plants and refineries—to wells for storage, the country would need to build a lot of new pipelines. Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless gas, and at high enough concentrations, it's an asphyxiant. If a pipe were to burst, no one might know for a while. The gas is also heavier than air, so it would hug the ground and roll downhill, choking off the oxygen of whoever is in its path. (This happened in 2020, in Satartia, Mississippi; 45 people were hospitalized.) Karla Lems, a Republican representative from South Dakota, voted for Trump and considers herself a conservative. She is among the most vocal opponents of a pipeline that the company Summit Carbon Solutions plans to build across her state and four others, to bring carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to a storage site in North Dakota. The company is attempting to use eminent domain to clear its way, which incensed Lems. 'George Washington said freedom and property rights are inseparable,' she told me. She sponsored a bill now making its way through the state legislature to bar eminent domain for carbon projects. (For a while, Summit planned to put it directly through her family's farmland, but the company eventually decided to site it on her neighbor's land instead, she told me. Summit declined to comment for this story.) To Lems, the 45Q tax credit is exactly the type of handout and government bloat that Trump promised to eliminate. 'In my mind, this is a company that stands to make a lot of money from this project, which I believe is just a grift on the taxpayers," she told me. 'It's all a big boondoggle and a scam. We'll see if the Trump administration can see it for what it is.' Chase Jensen, an organizer at Dakota Rural Action, which is also working to block the Summit pipeline, says many of his group's dues-paying members voted for Trump and would see it as a betrayal if he decided to keep the tax credit. Many assumed Trump would be against it, given its presentation as a Biden-branded climate solution, he told me. But more than that, he said, 'these folks hold property rights as one of the most core rights.' That those rights would be traded so that, as they see it, a corporation could make money would violate their deepest conservative values. Already, the Summit-pipeline fight has 'completely restructured' leadership in South Dakota, Jensen said; 11 Republican representatives who had voted for pro-pipeline legislation lost primary elections for state House and Senate seats. Jensen expects that the Trump administration's stance on 45Q will be disillusioning for supporters who might have expected the president to side with people over corporations. 'People are going to have to reconcile what's happening,' he said. (Summit has said that the project would need 'reassessment' if the tax credit were repealed.) So far, the U.S. has relatively few carbon-dioxide pipelines—just 5,300 miles' worth, compared with roughly 3 million miles of natural-gas pipelines. But the Department of Energy predicts that could grow substantially. Without the tax credit, much of that growth would likely be out of the question. With it, the administration could be setting itself up for a new fight that unites climate activists with aggrieved landowners. In some ways, the politics of this fight look familiar: After the Obama administration failed to pass climate legislation in 2010, the climate movement started making common cause with conservative landowners in Nebraska and other states that the oil pipeline Keystone XL was set to cross. (Some of the same players are fighting the Summit pipeline now.) That fight continued through the entire first Trump administration, and ended only when Biden blocked the project. Now the Trump administration is reportedly looking at resuscitating that pipeline project too. In its first weeks, the second Trump administration has rerun the attacks on climate policy from its first go-round—leaving the Paris Agreement, stripping climate information from public view—but has also taken them further, culling any federal employees and programs that have a whiff of promoting environmental justice. 45Q presents a challenge: Conspicuously preserve a program billed as a Biden-era climate solution, or axe something with bipartisan support that the oil industry—which contains some of Trump's most important business allies—wants to keep? Already, the administration has appeared to selectively protect at least one big Biden-era climate project in Montana—the expansion of a plant making sustainable jet fuel—after a Republican senator pressed the White House to release the funds. This administration might be skeptical of both big government and climate science, but that ideology can be bent for the right backers.
