Latest news with #MarkAmodei
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. Battery Production Set To Decline 75% Under Trump's ‘Big Bill'
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed what's been dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill', with the legislation designed to leverage deep cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) credits to pay for tax cuts, immigration enforcement and extra spending on defense. The contentious bill is now headed for the Senate, where it faces its final test, with all Democrats but only a handful of GOP lawmakers critical of the huge increase it will bring to the national debt. According to a recent analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the bill, coupled with cuts to other climate policies, could slash U.S. battery production by ~75% by 2030 to 250 GWh from the previously projected 1,050 gigawatt-hours, and EV sales by 40%. According to the report, doing away with the IRA would eliminate 130,000 potential jobs in the EV sector by 2030, with the majority in battery manufacturing. Following the passing of the IRA in 2022, companies have announced a total of 128 U.S. facilities for battery manufacturing, with more than half yet to begin construction. Red and purple states including Texas, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia, would be the most adversely impacted if the bill were to become law. Under normal circumstances, this fact alone would be enough to galvanize GOP lawmakers in those states to oppose the bill; however, just two Republican House reps joined the Democrats in voting against the bill, portending a similar fate for the bill in the Senate. Interestingly, even Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia, home to Hyundai's new $5.5B EV and battery manufacturing plant, threw his weight behind the bill, calling it 'fantastic.' According to estimates by the experts, the project will create $4-5 billion in fresh investments in Bartow County as well as 3,500 new jobs. Over the past five years, EV-related projects in Georgia have created ~$17 billion in investments and more than 22,800 new jobs. Similarly, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) did a 180 and supported the bill, having previously said that he will vote to preserve 45X and 30D tax credits. Overall, virtually all of the 21 GOP House representatives who previously defended clean energy tax credits under the IRA voted for the bill. Source: CNBC Meanwhile, the pivotal solar sector would face a massive setback under Trump's bill. According to a study by the Rhodium Group and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the solar sector has recorded more than $160B in large solar and battery storage projects since the IRA was passed three years ago, marking one of the sector's most productive periods in recent times. Solar and battery storage have been the fastest-growing energy source in the U.S., with the pair expected to account for 81% of new power additions to the grid in the current year. The tax bill would kill off two key tax credits that have been responsible for most of that growth. In effect, the bill would terminate both investment and production credits for renewable energy facilities that begin construction 60 days after it becomes law or those that enter service after 2028. Ben Smith, associate director at Rhodium Group, estimates that this could lead to up to a 72% decline in clean energy additions to the grid over the next decade. Further, clean energy projects will be ineligible to claim the tax credits if they source basic materials such as cobalt and lithium for batteries, as well as glass for solar panels, from prohibited foreign entities such as China. According to Guggenheim analyst Joseph Osha, the tax bill will be 'disastrous' for the rooftop solar industry because it will terminate tax credits for companies that lease solar equipment to customers. OSHA estimates that ~70% of the residential solar industry employs lease arrangements. Among the bill's other key highlights are a proposal to cut the Environmental Protection Agency's budget to $4.2B from $9.1B, the EPA's smallest budget in nearly 40 years. The Union of Concerned Scientists has warned that shuttering the EPA's scientific arm would essentially turn the EPA into a purely political agency. If passed, the U.S. will record a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1 billion metric tons annually over the next decade and U.S. household energy costs by ~$415 per household per year. The bill will also kill off the budding clean hydrogen, CO2 management, and even the nuclear power sectors. By Alex Kimani for More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Outdoor Groups Cry Foul After House Republicans Hold Midnight Vote to Sell Public Lands
House Republicans have advanced a plan to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of federal public lands in Nevada and Utah, drawing swift criticism from conservation groups, outdoor recreation advocates, and some state and local leaders. The amendment, introduced by Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT), was quietly added to a larger budget reconciliation bill during a late-night House Natural Resources Committee session earlier this week. Lawmakers voted to approve the amendment around midnight with little debate and no opportunity for public input. The bill must next face votes from both the full House and Senate before moving to the President's desk for final signature. Outdoor advocates are urging the public to contact representatives and oppose the amendment's inclusion in the reconciliation bill. Why DC Is Better (and Worse) Than You Think: An Outsider Summits Capitol Hill The proposal authorizes the sale of up to 200,000 acres in Clark County, Nev., and about 350,000 acres in Pershing County, Nev. It also targets more than 10,000 acres of public lands in Utah. Many of these parcels are managed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, and overlap with popular recreation areas used for mountain biking, climbing, paddling, and other outdoor activities. Supporters of the plan argue that selling these lands would generate an estimated $18 billion in revenue to help offset tax cuts and fund energy projects. They point out that the targeted parcels represent a small fraction of total federal land holdings in these states. 'Not all federal lands have the same value,' Representative Maloy said in committee. 'Some should not be available for disposal. We all agree on that. However, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, for decades, we've been disposing of appropriate lands in a manner that's consistent with what I propose to do here.' However, the plan has faced bipartisan opposition. Conservation groups warn that the affected areas include important recreation access points and wildlife habitat. Critics raised concerns about the land sales and the process used to pass the amendment. The vote happened around midnight with no notice or chance for public review. Every Republican except Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO) voted for the amendment. The full package, including the land sale, passed with support from all Republicans and Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA). The bill also allows industries to pay to skip judicial review of environmental assessments under NEPA. Conservation groups warn this could weaken protections and reduce public oversight of development projects. The reconciliation bill, including the public land sale amendment, must now go before the full House of Representatives for a vote. If it passes the House, the bill will move to the Senate, where it will face further debate, possible amendments, and a final vote. If both chambers approve the bill, they will send it to the president to sign into law. Lawmakers could still remove or modify the land sale and NEPA provisions during this process. Advocacy groups say this is a critical window for public input and political pressure, as negotiations and revisions are likely before the bill reaches a final form. Until a final bill is signed, the proposed land sales are not enacted. Stakeholders are urging continued outreach to elected officials to influence the outcome before it becomes law. Outdoor recreation and conservation groups are encouraging the public to take action by contacting their lawmakers. Organizations like the Outdoor Alliance (OA) are urging individuals to write directly to their congressional representatives to demand the removal of the land sale and NEPA rollback provisions from the bill. OA emphasizes that personal, direct messages are more effective than form letters. You can find your representative through the government's index. Advocates stress that public lands deserve transparent review and public involvement. These decisions made behind closed doors without input from communities or stakeholders seem to follow the same path as other recent anti-public-lands policies. GearJunkie will continue to report on this issue as it develops. Trump Proposes $1B Cut to National Parks, Transferring Ownership to States
Fast Company
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Fast Company
The Wilderness Letter is a reminder that nature shaped America's identity
As summer approaches, millions of Americans begin planning or taking trips to state and national parks, seeking to explore the wide range of outdoor recreational opportunities across the nation. A lot of them will head toward the nation's wilderness areas— 110 million acres, mostly in the West, that are protected by the strictest federal conservation rules. When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it described wilderness areas as places that evoked mystery and wonder, 'where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.' These are wild landscapes that present nature in its rawest form. The law requires the federal government to protect these areas ' for the permanent good of the whole people.' Wilderness areas are found in national parks, conservation land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, national forests and U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges. In early May 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives began to consider allowing the sale of federal lands in six counties in Nevada and Utah, five of which contain wilderness areas. Ostensibly, these sales are to promote affordable housing, but the reality is that the proposal, introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, is a departure from the standard process of federal land exchanges that accommodate development in some places but protect wilderness in others. Regardless of whether Americans visit their public lands or know when they have crossed a wilderness boundary, as environmental historians we believe that everyone still benefits from the existence and protection of these precious places. This belief is an idea eloquently articulated and popularized 65 years ago by the noted Western writer Wallace Stegner. His eloquence helped launch the modern environmental movement and gave power to the idea that the nation's public lands are a fundamental part of the United States' national identity and a cornerstone of American freedom. Humble origins In 1958, Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to examine outdoor recreation in the U.S. in order to determine not only what Americans wanted from the outdoors, but to consider how those needs and desires might change decades into the future. One of the commission's members was David E. Pesonen, who worked at the Wildland Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. He was asked to examine wilderness and its relationship to outdoor recreation. Pesonen later became a notable environmental lawyer and leader of the Sierra Club. But at the time, Pesonen had no idea what to say about wilderness. However, he knew someone who did. Pesonen had been impressed by the wild landscapes of the American West in Stegner's 1954 history ' Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.' So he wrote to Stegner, who at the time was at Stanford University, asking for help in articulating the wilderness idea. Stegner's response, which he said later was written in a single afternoon, was an off-the-cuff riff on why he cared about preserving wildlands. This letter became known as the Wilderness Letter and marked a turning point in American political and conservation history. Pesonen shared the letter with the rest of the commission, which also shared it with newly installed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. Udall found its prose to be so profound, he read it at the seventh Wilderness Conference in 1961 in San Francisco, a speech broadcast by KCBS, the local FM radio station. The Sierra Club published the letter in the record of the conference's proceedings later that year. But it was not until its publication in The Washington Post on June 17, 1962, that the letter reached a national audience and captured the imagination of generations of Americans. An eloquent appeal In the letter, Stegner connected the idea of wilderness to a fundamental part of American identity. He called wilderness ' something that has helped form our character and that has certainly shaped our history as a people . . . the challenge against which our character as a people was formed . . . (and) the thing that has helped to make an American different from and, until we forget it in the roar of our industrial cities, more fortunate than other men.' Without wild places, he argued, the U.S. would be just like every other overindustrialized place in the world. In the letter, Stegner expressed little concern with how wilderness might support outdoor recreation on public lands. He didn't care whether wilderness areas had once featured roads, trails, homesteads or even natural resource extraction. What he cared about was Americans' freedom to protect and enjoy these places. Stegner recognized that the freedom to protect, to restrain ourselves from consuming, was just as important as the freedom to consume. Perhaps most importantly, he wrote, wilderness was ' an intangible and spiritual resource,' a place that gave the nation 'our hope and our excitement,' landscapes that were 'good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.' Without it, Stegner lamented, 'never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.' To him, the nation's natural cathedrals and the vaulted ceiling of the pure blue sky are Americans' sacred spaces as much as the structures in which they worship on the weekends. Stegner penned the letter during a national debate about the value of preserving wild places in the face of future development. ' Something will have gone out of us as a people,' he wrote, 'if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed.' If not protected, Stegner believed these wildlands that had helped shape American identity would fall to what he viewed as the same exploitative forces of unrestrained capitalism that had industrialized the nation for the past century. Every generation since has an obligation to protect these wild places. Stegner's Wilderness Letter became a rallying cry to pass the Wilderness Act. The closing sentences of the letter are Stegner's best: ' We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope.' This phrase, 'the geography of hope,' is Stegner's most famous line. It has become shorthand for what wilderness means: the wildlands that defined American character on the Western frontier, the wild spaces that Americans have had the freedom to protect, and the natural places that give Americans hope for the future of this planet. America's 'best idea' Stegner returned to themes outlined in the Wilderness Letter again two decades later in his essay 'The Best Idea We Ever Had: An Overview,' published in Wilderness magazine in spring 1983. Writing in response to the Reagan administration's efforts to reduce protection of the National Park System, Stegner declared that the parks were 'Absolutely American, absolutely democratic.' He said they reflect us as a nation, at our best rather than our worst, and without them, millions of Americans' lives, his included, would have been poorer. Public lands are more than just wilderness or national parks. They are places for work and play. They provide natural resources, wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water and recreational opportunities to small towns and sprawling metro areas alike. They are, as Stegner said, cures for cynicism and places of shared hope. Stegner's words still resonate as Americans head for their public lands and enjoy the beauty of the wild places protected by wilderness legislation this summer. With visitor numbers increasing annually and agency budgets at historic lows, we believe it is useful to remember how precious these places are for all Americans. And we agree with Stegner that wilderness, public lands writ large, are more valuable to Americans' collective identity and expression of freedom than they are as real estate that can be sold or commodities that can be extracted.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House Republicans push to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the West
Matthew Daly and Matthew BrownAssociated PressWASHINGTON — House Republicans added a provision to their sweeping tax cut package authorizing sales of hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah, prompting outrage from Democrats and environmentalists who called it a betrayal that could lead to drilling, mining and logging in sensitive on the House Natural Resources Committee adopted the land sales proposal early Wednesday morning. The initial draft had not included it amid bipartisan land sale provision was put forward by Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of parcels could be used for economic development, mining and infrastructure projects such as the expansion of an airport and a reservoir in Utah, according to local officials and plans for the sites would be considered for affordable housing, which is much needed in fast-growing parts of sites include up to 200,000 acres in Clark County Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, according to Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto. That's less than 1 percent of more than 50 million acres of federal land overall in the included is land in Pershing County, Nevada, where Amodei has advocated for selling or exchanging about 350,000 acres of public lands and allowing sales to mining Masto in a statement called it "a land grab to fund Republicans' billionaire giveaway tax bill.""In the dead of night, Representative Mark Amodei pushed House Republicans to move forward with an insane plan that cuts funding from water conservation and public schools across Nevada," she parcels in Utah would be sold at fair market value to local governments and make up only a third of 1 percent of public lands in the state, according to Maloy's office."The sales from these small parcels of land will generate significant federal revenue, and have broad local support. It's a tailored, parochial budgetary measure," said House Natural Resources Committee spokesperson John Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd voted against the Nevada parcels are also in Lyon and Washoe Counties. The Utah parcels are in the western portion of the state, including around the city of St. George and near Zion National said the land sales provision resulted from a "community-driven effort" by the impacted sales provision advanced as the Natural Resources committee voted 26-17 to allow increased leasing of public lands for natural resource extraction, while clearing the path for more development by speeding up government said the overall bill would generate at least $18 billion in new revenue and rates paid by companies to extract oil, gas and coal would be cut, reversing former Democratic President Joe Biden's attempts to curb fossil fuels to help address climate measure is part of Trump's big bill of tax breaks, spending cuts and beefed-up funding to halt migrants. House Speaker Mike Johnson has set a goal of passing the package out of his chamber by Memorial Day. All told, 11 different House committees are crafting portions of the Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican and former Interior secretary in the first Trump administration, had said before the vote that he was drawing a "red line" on federal land sales."It's a no now. It will be a no later. It will be a no forever,'' said Zinke, whose state includes large parcels of federally owned lands. He is not on the Natural Resources Committee but his office said he would oppose any legislation to sell lands that reaches the House 1 million square miles is under federal control. Most of that land is in Alaska and Western states. That includes 63 percent in Utah and 80 percent in and Rep. Gabe Vasquez, D-New Mexico, are leading a new bipartisan Public Lands Caucus intended to protect and expand access to America's public lands. The caucus launched with a Wednesday news conference hours after the resources panel about the land sale provisions, Zinke said he understood frustrations over restrictions on logging and mineral extraction. But he indicated federal lands should remain under government management."I prefer the management scheme and I give as an example a hotel. If you don't like the management of a hotel, don't sell the hotel; change the management," he and gas royalty rates would drop from 16.7 percent on public lands and 18.75 percent offshore to a uniform 12.5 percent under the committee-passed bill, which still faces a vote in the full House and Senate once it is incorporated into the final legislative package. Royalties for coal would drop from 12.5 percent to 7 measure calls for four oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over the next decade. It also seeks to boost the ailing coal industry with a mandate to make available for leasing 6,250 square miles of public lands — an area greater in size than supporters say the lost revenue would be offset by increased development. It's uncertain if companies would have an appetite for leases given the industry's precipitous decline in recent years as utilities switched to cleaner burning fuels and renewable Secretary Doug Burgum and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner in March proposed using "underutilized" federal land for affordable housing. Turner said some 7 million homes are needed. Officials under Biden also sought to use public lands for affordable housing, although on a smaller agencies have not yet released more details of the reported from Billings, Montana.
Boston Globe
11-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
A Republican push to sell public lands in the West is reigniting a political fight
Who should control such sites has long been a burning source of disagreement in the West, where about half the acreage is under federal control and cities that sprawl across open landscapes face Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The GOP plan is rekindling the fight and generating strong blowback from Democrats and conservationists. They see the measure as a precedent-setting move that would open the door to sales in other states. Advertisement 'We have grave concerns that this is the camel's nose under the tent,' said Steve Bloch with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 'If it can happen in Utah, if it can happen in Nevada, it's not going to stay here. It's going to spread.' Some Republicans also signaled opposition, setting up a political clash as the budget process moves forward. The majority of land in the House provision is in Nevada, including the counties that encompass Reno, Las Vegas, and the fast-growing city of Fernley, according to maps released by the measure's sponsors, Republican Representatives Mark Amodei of Nevada and Celeste Maloy of Utah. Advertisement Fernley City Manager Benjamin Marchant said the opportunity to buy 12,000 acres of federal land at the edge of the community was 'good news.' The city's size tripled since its incorporation in 2001 and is expected to double again over the next decade, he said. There is hope to emerge as a technology hub, but Fernley needs space to grow. 'We can't even talk about projects when it's federal land,' Marchant said. 'We can't sell what we don't own, and this is the first step.' Other parcels to be sold are farther from developed areas. They include sites bordering Zion National Park and tribal lands such as the Paiute Indian Tribe reservation in Utah and the Pyramid Lake Paiute reservation in Nevada. 'That means the tribe can't grow,' said Mathilda Miller with Native Voters Alliance Nevada, an advocacy group for the state's tribes that opposes the sales. 'They can't reclaim the land that was stolen from their tribe, and it brings development right up to their doorstep.' Roughly 100,000 acres in western Nevada's rural Pershing County could be sold to private companies with mining claims or mining infrastructure, according to Amodei's office. The legislation also requires federal parcels in that area to be exchanged for an equal amount of nonfederal land. Many of the communities near sale locations share a common theme: Their expansion is hemmed in by federal property, which makes up 80 percent of the land in Nevada and 63 percent in Utah. Some states in the Midwest and East have 1 percent or less federal land by comparison. Advertisement Public parcels often are interspersed with private holdings in a 'checkerboard' fashion that further complicates development efforts. Housing advocates caution that federal land is not universally suitable for affordable housing. Generally, the farther away the land is from cities and towns the more infrastructure is required — roads, sewage, public transportation. 'It's a costly way to go because of the infrastructure needs, because of the time it will take,' said Vicki Been of the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University. 'I'm not saying that there's no place on federal lands that would make sense, but one has to really look carefully.' The Republican proposal seeks to identify suitable lands in coordination with local municipalities. That has left some concerned there aren't enough assurances that the land, or enough land, will end up going to affordable housing. 'The devils in the details,' said Tara Rollins, executive director of the Utah Housing Coalition. 'It could just be a land grab. There just needs to be a lot of checks and balances.' The wholesale transfer of federal lands to local or private entities is something many Western conservatives have long sought. Republican officials in Utah last year filed a lawsuit seeking to take over huge swathes of federal land in the state, but they were There also are strong voices within the GOP against public land sales, notably Montana lawmakers Representative Ryan Zinke, who was interior secretary in President Trump's first term, and Senator Steve Daines. Colorado Representative Jeff Hurd was the lone Republican on the Natural Resources Committee to vote against the lands provision. Advertisement The legislation would sell about 10,000 acres of land in two Utah counties. Maloy said it avoids areas that should be conserved and would help ease demand for housing and water, by creating space to build new homes and expand reservoir capacity. Smaller land sales are a common practice for the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. 'Not all federal lands have the same value,' Maloy said. 'In both Democratic and Republican administrations, for decades, we've been disposing of appropriate lands in a manner that's consistent with what I propose to do here.'
