SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Instead of continuing past success on reducing emissions, lowering consumer costs, and helping American automakers lead the global transition to clean vehicles, the Trump administration has moved to eliminate EPA actions that reduce climate pollution.
The Trump administration’s “Freedom to Pollute” agenda just went into overdrive.
The 2009 endangerment finding on climate emissions is the underlying basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory responsibility for taking actions to address greenhouse gas pollution. U.S. President Donald Trump’s EPA just proposed to eliminate this science-backed finding which puts several rules, and their many health, climate, and consumer benefits, at risk. Among these rules are the wildly successful vehicle standards that are reducing pollution, saving drivers money at the pump, driving industry innovation, and providing more clean vehicle choices at the dealerships than ever before.
This action flies in the face of overwhelming evidence of climate harms and the legal basis for the determination, as my colleague Dr. Cleetus pointed out in her blog when EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin first noted his interest in targeting the finding. This, like so many other recent administrative actions, will be challenged in court and may eventually be determined to be illegal, as it most certainly is.
Congress established EPA to protect public health and welfare—and since climate change pollution is clearly endangering these things, EPA has a responsibility to do something about it. By eliminating the endangerment finding, EPA is trying to avoid its responsibility to act. This isn’t just bad news for reducing climate emissions and the worsening impacts of climate change that Americans are dealing with on a daily basis from intensified storms to extreme heat, but it’s going to mean spending more at the pump and fewer choices at the dealership.
Transportation—including the cars, trucks, and buses plying our roads everyday—is the LARGEST source of human-caused climate pollution in the U.S. accounting for 28% of the annual total. And globally, the U.S. is second only to China in overall annual climate pollution. So yes—our cars and trucks and the gasoline and diesel they burn DO contribute to climate change. And reducing those emissions is important for getting global emissions—and global temperatures—under control.
I don’t know anyone who wants to spend thousands of dollars more on gas—but that’s the path we are headed down by eliminating standards.
Alongside the endangerment finding action, the administration also announced it was eliminating all EPA vehicle greenhouse gas standards for passenger cars and heavy-duty trucks. Despite the most recent passenger car and heavy-duty truck EPA standards regulations being less ambitious than our analysis suggested was feasible, they represent the largest climate action the U.S. has ever taken, Combined, the latest greenhouse gas standards for cars and heavy-duty trucks would eliminate a total of approximately 8 billion tons of heat-trapping emissions—more than one year of total U.S. climate emissions. EPA’s Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, released alongside the announcement to eliminate the standards, completely ignores the value of these benefits noting, “The EPA does not attempt to monetize the value, if any, of changes in GHG emissions that result from the proposed action.” We’ll be taking a closer look at what other logical and analytical gymnastics the administration is including in their assessment as we prepare comments on the proposal.
History has shown that vehicle standards are extremely effective at reducing pollution. Smog-forming pollutants, carbon monoxide, and dangerous particulates from tailpipes have all declined substantially from the 1960s and ‘70s and led to improved air quality and public health. This progress on pollution, along with steadily growing vehicle sales, occurred despite constant cries from the auto industry over the past half a century claiming vehicle pollution standards were bad for business, unachievable, etc. etc. Vehicle standards have been an essential tool to achieving lower tailpipe emissions and more efficient gasoline models as well as bringing an ever-increasing variety of electrified models to market.
(Photo: EPA)
The proof is in the pudding. Take this chart from EPA’s latest “Trends Report.” While fuel economy standards accelerated emissions reductions after the oil crisis in the 70’s, in the absence of further regulation (resulting from automaker and oil industry opposition) the emissions from new vehicles rose in the 1990s and early 2000s. Why? Because contrary to what the EPA argues in its proposal, the market does not work to innovate and cut fuel in the absence of regulation. Over the last 20 years, new fuel economy and emissions standards, currently being eliminated by this administration, have pushed new vehicles to the lowest level of emissions on record.
The data don’t lie: Vehicle standards work. Freed from binding fuel economy and emission standards in 90’s and early 2000’s, vehicle pollution increased as well as gasoline consumption. Recent fuel economy and emissions standards being eliminated by this administration have pushed new vehicles to the lowest level of emissions on record.
When Trump offered to payback oil industry donations with political favors, I don’t think oil executives themselves could have even dreamed up that this wishlist would be granted within seven months of his reentering the White House.
This latest attack on vehicle standards specifically covers EPA’s greenhouse gas standards for cars and commercial medium and heavy-duty trucks. The first of these EPA standards went into effect in model year 2012 for passenger cars. The figure above illustrates the declining emissions that have occurred for the average vehicle since their implementation. But here’s a more specific illustrative example of what that means in the real world.
The Toyota RAV4 is the best-selling SUV in the U.S. Before EPA standards, it went 15 years with essentially zero improvement in fuel economy or emissions. Thanks to EPA standards, buyers now have options that are 29-46% more efficient. These more efficient options are saving consumers hundreds of dollars at the gas pump every year while cutting emissions in half for the cleanest models. I don’t know anyone who wants to spend thousands of dollars more on gas—but that’s the path we are headed down by eliminating standards.
(Photo: EPA and DOE)
EPA’s standards haven’t only delivered more choices of lower polluting, and less fuel consuming gasoline cars and trucks. These standards have pushed traditional vehicle makers to add more hybrid and electric vehicle models to their lineups and encouraged new EV-only companies to bring products to market. The increased availability of hybrid electric (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV), and Battery Electric (BEV) models driven by vehicle standards (as shown in the figure below) has given consumers more choices to cut their gasoline bills or eliminate them all together.
(Photo: EPA)
Global warming emissions from new vehicles, no matter the type of vehicle, are at record lows, largely through the use of hybrid and plug-in electric technologies deployed by manufacturers in response to EPA standards, exactly the technologies that this administration is now attacking.
While the above examples are about passenger vehicles, the story is similar for the heavy-duty trucks. As pointed out in our report on electric truck progress, Ready for Work 2.0.
“A few years ago, electric vans, buses, and trucks were essentially concept vehicles—today, more than 70 models of zero-emission MHDVs are being put to work around the country thanks to investments spurred by EPA greenhouse gas emission standards and state zero-emission vehicle requirements.”
“The momentum behind zero-emission trucks has swelled over the past several years, with registrations of electric trucks reaching record levels each year. In 2019, there were fewer than 1,000 new zero-emission trucks, buses, and vans registered in the United States.”
Now there are 150,000 thousand electric medium and heavy-duty vehicles ranging from large pick-up trucks and delivery vans to a growing number of big rigs.
(Graphic: UCS/S&P Global Mobility 2025 including class 2b through class 8 vehicles.)
Reductions in heavy-duty truck emissions, fuel consumption, and the increasingly common sight of electric delivery trucks on our streets is no accident. It’s the result of policies like EPA’s vehicle standards.
Instead of trying to continue this success on reducing emissions, lowering consumer costs, and helping American automakers lead the global transition to clean vehicles, the Trump administration has moved to eliminate EPA actions that reduce climate pollution.
While some vehicle makers are guilty of fighting against state and federal vehicle standards so they can continue to wallow in global mediocrity, the oil industry is the one laughing all the way to the bank. For decades the oil industry has used fraud and deceit to avoid the realities of climate pollution, so it is no surprise they want to prolong the life of combustion vehicles as long as possible. They just scored big time in Trump’s tax bill, as my colleague details in their recent blog, and were already basking in the glow of Congress’ decision to pull the rug out from under the state clean car and truck standards and neutering the Department of Transportation’s fuel economy standards by eliminate compliance fines. Now they get another gift in in the elimination of EPA rules that would result in U.S. car and truck drivers spending billions more on gasoline and diesel than they would have otherwise. When Trump offered to payback oil industry donations with political favors, I don’t think oil executives themselves could have even dreamed up that this wishlist would be granted within seven months of his reentering the White House.
How much will the rest of us be paying to the oil industry, you ask? If all of these rollbacks take effect, there’s nothing stopping the auto industry from backsliding on the progress that’s been made. But just looking at the benefits of the rules that have yet to take effect gives a good idea. Owners of new passenger cars subject to the standards between 2027 and 2032 would have saved an estimated $6,000 over the life of the vehicle. Eliminating the Phase 3 heavy-duty truck GHG standards for model years 2027 through 2032 will increase net costs to truck drivers by $2 billion. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg.
The attack on logic, reason, and just plain common sense might be comic, if it wasn’t so serious as pointed out in my colleagues “danger season” blog post. The irony of this past week’s extreme heat event impacting more than 150 million Americans happening at the same time as the administration’s latest climate-denial move was painfully apparent in this Fox News clip.
This is the time to accelerate, not throw us into reverse. Instead, the White House is seeking to trash these vital protections, using the flimsiest and most self-serving of rationales, showing yet again it is willing to sacrifice public protections for polluters’ gain. For U.S. drivers, it means less choices at the dealership and more pain at the pump.
The IRA won’t last a decade. Its funding starts running out at the end of September. So here is what individual Americans might want to do over the 165 days.
You may recall the amount of sweat, anguish, and resolve it took to pass the Inflation Reduction Act. There were the amazing young people of the Sunrise Movement, who channeled the energy of Greta’s worldwide outburst into the offices of Nancy Pelosi, energizing the 2020 primary race and then—in a remarkable display of political maturity—turning that energy into legislative sausage making. There was the steady morphing of the Build Back Better bill into ever-more compromised climate legislation, and then the widespread conviction that even that would not pass. Until at the last minute Joe Manchin agreed, as long as it was larded with yet more gifts for the fossil fuel industry. And with that Congress took its first real action on climate in the 35 years it’s been an issue.
It was supposed to be a steady source of funding that would last a decade, giving this energy transition time to find its feet, and giving the U.S. a foothold in the fight with China to determine the future. But in the course of a few months the White House and the fossil-funded GOP Congress have overturned all that except the extra gifts to the fossil fuel industry. (Antonia Juhasz provides the best account yet of all the excruciating details in Rolling Stone.)
The IRA won’t last a decade. Its funding starts running out at the end of September—if you’re in the market for an electric vehicle, that has to be done now. (And there may be some excellent lease deals). And if you’re even considering getting solar on your home, that needs to happen by the end of the year if you want the tax credit.
Normally we talk about these things as political questions—but today I asked a few experts to share their take on what individual Americans might want to do over the 165 days.
This summer and this fall are the right times to work with a trusted local provider to get your project up. If nothing else, it’s a good way to disappoint the GOP and their fossil fuel friend group.
Here’s Cindy del Rosario-Tapan, from the very experienced Solar United Neighbors (who are sponsoring a webinar later this week to go over the same ground and more)
My old 350.org colleague Phil Aroneanu has been hard at work at Climate United trying to protect what they can of the IRA funding. He breaks it down a little further:
If you're hoping to put solar on the roof of your home, and you want to own the system (not lease it), the 30% residential clean energy tax credit (25D) will sunset at the end of 2025, 10 years sooner than what was written into the Inflation Reduction Act.
If you own a business or nonprofit, or work at a school or city government agency and want to install solar OR you want to lease a solar array for your home rather than own it outright, you'll need to get started as soon as possible to qualify for the up to 60% investment tax credit (48E) and bonuses available. Onerous restrictions will kick in by the end of 2025 making it more difficult to claim the tax credits for projects that aren't yet under construction—and the Trump administration just released an Executive Order that will add even more red tape to these tax credits.
If you're hoping to buy and electric vehicle, the tax credits expire on September 30, and if you're planning to install heat pumps, windows, or take other energy efficiency measures, most of those tax credits expire at the end of the year.
And here’s Andrea Karelas from RE-Volv, a group that helps nonprofits go solar. (He’s also the author of the excellent Climate Courage), who analyzes it from the point of view of an average homeowner or project sponsor
So basically, before the big terrible bill, thanks to the IRA, if you went solar in the U.S., you got an Investment Tax Credit for your system worth 30% of the value (for storage as well) as a base amount and that credit would have been in place through 2032. So if your solar system cost $10K, you'll have $3K less taxes to pay next April, so essentially your system is only $7K. Then there are bonus adders that stack based on certain criteria. If your project is in an "energy community" (which basically is a place that has been historically impacted by fossil fuel production, or has many people working in energy production), you get an extra 10%. If you are in a low to moderate income community you are eligible for a 10-20% adder (but those are first come first serve). And if your equipment is made using majority domestic content (which is basically impossible) you'd get another 10%. So the solar ITC for residences (25d) or non-residential (48e) start at a minimum of 30% savings. If someone qualified for all the bonus adders, it would be 70% covered by the ITC. Many of our projects, for example, get 40 or 50% because they are in an energy community and serve an LMI population.
Now, thanks to the big terrible bill, the residential credit (25d) will expire Dec 31 2025. So basically your system price goes up by a minimum of 30% if you don't have it fully installed before January 1 2026. (And you could be missing out on up to 70% of the system cost covered if you qualify for the bonus adders.)
Now, the nonresidential credit (48e) on paper looks like it gets a better deal because you can theoretically get project construction started a year from when the bill was signed (so July 4 2026) or get it completed by the end of 2027. BUT they also added requirements regarding Foreign Entities of Concern to limit the use of Chinese parts or equipment that are so unworkable that it makes the ITC unusable, even with these extended timelines. The FEOC requirements kick in January 1 2026. So in essence, nonresidential projects now also have a December 31 2025 deadline.
All of this would be easier to navigate with devoted help from blue state officials: Here, for instance, is some good advice from NYSFocus on how New York Gov. Kathy Hochul could help, and some excellent analysis along the same lines from Noah Ginsburg. But I think the bottom line is clear—this summer and this fall are the right times to work with a trusted local provider to get your project up. If nothing else, it’s a good way to disappoint the GOP and their fossil fuel friend group.
While you’re doing that, of course, we also need to be standing up for clean energy in general. That’s why we’re hard at work on SunDay.
Part of that work involves the solar industry reinventing itself for the world past subsidies—which is not impossible. Its old model won’t work without federal support, but that’s not necessarily the end: Solar flourishes without much in the way of subsidy elsewhere, in places like Australia, because they’ve evolved a lower-cost business plan. Permitting reform is key (and a key focus of SunDay), as Ryan Kennedy makes clear in this piece from PV Magazine just yesterday:
Permit applications can cause delays of two to six weeks or more, causing a poor customer experience and higher project cancellation rates. Permitting also drives up costs. In New Jersey, for example, permit approvals and related barriers add an estimated $3,800 to $4,500 to average project costs. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) said the cost could be in excess of $6,000 to $7,000 for an average project.
New Jersey regulators, among other states, recently passed legislation to require automated permitting for residential solar, cutting timelines and costs. Tools like the Department of Energy’s (DOE) SolarApp+ can facilitate permitting in your jurisdiction, and DOE provides technical assistance for implementing the tool.
Birch estimates an average U.S. installation could shed $0.98 per W from automated permitting fixes alone.
Since that hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t make the immediate blow any easier. As Aroneanu says:
Multiple recent analyses of the budget bill estimated that cutting clean energy and manufacturing tax credits will scale back solar and other renewable generation capacity by up to 72% in the next decade, raise household electricity prices up to $290, trigger the closure or cancellation of 331 solar and storage factories, and erase $286 billion in local investment in American communities, killing 760,000 jobs in the process.
Make no mistake: The Trump administration is doing everything in its power to try to kill clean energy.
Still, it seems impossible that American ingenuity won’t start to figure out some ways, especially since the rest of the world is surging confidently ahead. (Here, somewhat randomly, are updates from Turkey, Africa, and of course China). As Karelas says:
We know solar is the cheapest form of electrons ever created. Last year 90% of new generation built in the U.S. was clean energy, 78% of it solar. (No wonder they're coming after it this hard.) There are some in the residential space who are trying to make the most of the situation by saying, “Look, the industry had a nice cushion with these tax credits for many years.” Tax credits also made project financing more complicated—there's a world where the solar industry bounces back from this after cutting costs, streamlining various processes, and will be stronger than ever… So, light at the end of the tunnel, but definitely a terrible blow.
Our job is to magnify that (sun)light, shorten that tunnel, and not fall any further behind the rest of the world than we have to. So, to work on all fronts!
The fossil fuel industry spent big to push through a $1 billion provision in the GOP budget bill, which the senators said would allow some oil companies to "pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."
Four Democratic U.S. senators are demanding an explanation from Big Oil after a $1.1 billion tax loophole was added to the Senate version of the GOP's budget reconciliation megabill.
Letters sent Thursday by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out the CEOs of two oil giants, ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv, which they say "lobbied furiously" for the handout.
The companies, the senators said, "[stand] to benefit tremendously from this provision and ha[ve] spent big to support it—while preserving the many government subsidies for the oil and gas industry already in the tax code."
They asked for the companies to disclose how much they have spent lobbying Republicans for the tax break and how much of a windfall they expect in return.
The provision in question, approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week, would shield many large oil companies from the Inflation Reduction Act's corporate alternative minimum tax, or CAMT. Introduced in 2022, the CAMT requires that companies making more than $1 billion pay 15% of the profits they report to shareholders.
"The rationale for CAMT was simple," the senators said. "For far too long, massive corporations had taken advantage of loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, sometimes paying zero federal taxes despite earning billions in profits."
The GOP bill modifies how oil companies are required to report earnings, allowing them to exempt "intangible drilling and development costs," which in turn allows more companies to fall below the $1 billion earnings threshold.
The senators highlighted a 2023 earnings call by Marathon Oil, recently acquired by ConocoPhillips, in which executives said the CAMT was the only income tax they were required to pay.
"If enacted," the senators said, "this provision would reduce or even eliminate tax liabilities for oil and gas companies under CAMT, allowing some to pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."
The letter highlighted lobbying filings by ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv in which they "explicitly prioritize" securing this handout.
Referenced throughout is the aggressive effort to court Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who wrote the loophole into the Senate bill. According to OpenSecrets, Lankford received more than $546,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry—his top source of industry donations—between 2019 and 2024.
The senators described the industry's lobbying as "especially insulting" because "Senate Republicans are trying to pay for this handout with cuts to other programs that would end up raising energy prices for everyday Americans."
The GOP bill would eliminate tax breaks for clean energy that incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles and make their homes more energy-efficient, including the home energy-efficiency and residential clean energy credits.
Citing data from Rewiring America, the senators estimated that ditching the two credits would cost the average household up to $2,200 per year in savings on utility bills.
The Center for American Progress projects that eliminating electric vehicle credits would increase demand for gasoline, raising prices by 27 to 35 cents per gallon by 2035. Americans will pay the oil and gas industry "an additional $339 billion for gasoline and $75 billion for electricity by 2035," the May report says.
"Congress should not raise energy prices for working families to deliver handouts to Big Oil," the senators said.