 |
|
|
|||||
More than $14 billion in clean energy investments in the U.S. have been canceled or delayed this year, according to an analysis released Thursday, as President Donald Trump’s pending megabill has raised fears over the future of domestic battery, electric vehicle and solar and wind energy development. Many companies are concerned that investments will be in jeopardy amid House Republicans’ passage of a tax bill that would gut clean energy credits, nonpartisan group E2 said in its analysis of projects that it and consultancy Atlas Public Policy tracked. The groups estimate the losses since January have also cost 10,000 new clean energy jobs. The tax credits, bolstered in the landmark climate bill passed under former President Joe Biden in 2022, are crucial for boosting renewable technologies key to the clean energy transition. E2 estimates that $132 billion in plans have been announced since the so-called Inflation Reduction Act passed, not counting the cancellations. Last week’s House bill effectively renders moot many of the laws incentives. Advocacy groups decried the potential impact that could have on the industry after the multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package passed. The Houses plan coupled with the administrations focus on stomping out clean energy and returning us to a country powered by coal and gas guzzlers is causing businesses to cancel plans, delay their plans and take their money and jobs to other countries instead, E2 executive director Bob Keefe said. The Senate is now reviewing the bill with an informal July 4 deadline to get it to the president’s desk. What has been canceled Some of the most recent cancellations include the Kore Power battery factory in Arizona and BorgWarners closure of two EV manufacturing sites in Michigan. Bosch suspended a $200 million investment in a hydrogen fuel cell factory in South Carolina, citing changes within the market over the past year in a statement to The Associated Press. Tariffs, inflationary pressures, nascent company struggles and low adoption rates for some technologies may also have been reasons for these companies plans changing. For instance, the battery storage and electric vehicle sectors have seen the most impact in 2025, with the latter especially having had had a difficult past few years. Several projects spurred by the IRA were also canceled prior to 2025. Of the projects canceled this year, most more than $12 billion worth came in Republican-led states and congressional districts, the analysis said. Red districts have benefited more than blue ones from an influx of clean energy development and jobs, experts say. Georgia and Tennessee are particularly at risk because they are highly invested in EV and battery production, said Marilyn Brown, an energy policy professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who was not involved in the analysis. If all of a sudden these tax credits are removed, Im not sure how these ongoing projects are going to continue, said Fengqi You, an engineering professor at Cornell University who also was not involved. A handful of Republican lawmakers have urged the continuation of energy tax credits, with some saying in an April letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. that a repeal could disrupt the American people and weaken the county’s position as a global energy leader. The US and the global stage The Trump administration has sought to dismantle much of Biden’s environmental and climate-related policy what he calls the Democrats green new scam withdrawing again from the Paris climate agreement, rolling back countless landmark pollution regulations and environmental initiatives, reconsidering scientific findings supporting climate action, blocking renewable energy sources and more in an effort to bolster a fossil fuel-led American energy dominance agenda. Meanwhile other countries are proceeding with green investments. The European Parliament is committing to the European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a policy meant to prevent carbon leakage, or companies moving production to countries where climate policies are less strict. And the International Maritime Organization is moving toward a global carbon tax on shipping. In a sign that not all hope is lost for the future of renewables in the U.S., April alone saw nearly $500 million in new development, with Japanese manufacturing company Hitachi’s energy arm building out transmission and electrification operations in Virginia and materials and technology company Corning investing in solar manufacturing in Michigan. Still, $4.5 billion in development was canceled or delayed last month, according to E2’s tally. ___ The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Alexa St. John and Isabella O’Malley, Associated Press Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Supreme Court backed a multibillion-dollar oil railroad expansion in Utah Thursday in a ruling that scales back a key environmental law for projects around the country. The 8-0 decision comes after an appeal to the high court from backers of the project, which is aimed at quadrupling oil production in the remote area of sandstone and sagebrush. Environmental groups said the decision would have sweeping impacts on National Environmental Policy Act reviews. The Trump administration has already said it’s speeding up that process after the president vowed to boost U.S. oil and gas development. The case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometer) expansion that would connect oil and gas producers to the broader rail network and allow them to access larger markets. Supporters have argued that streamlining environmental reviews would speed up development. The justices reversed a lower court decision and restored a critical approval from federal regulators on the Surface Transportation Board. The project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles. Environmental groups and a Colorado county had argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential impacts when they consider new development, such as increased wildfire risk, the effect of additional crude oil production from the area, and increased refining in Gulf states. The justices, though, found that regulators were right to consider the direct effects of the project, rather than the wider upstream and downstream impact. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that courts should defer to regulators on where to draw the line on what factors to take into account. Four other conservative justices joined his opinion. Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” he wrote of the policy act reviews. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it. The courts conservative majority court has taken steps to curtail the power of federal regulators in other cases, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the outcome, but with a narrower legal reasoning. In a decision joined by her two liberal colleagues, she said the court could have simply cleared the way for the railway approval by finding the board didn’t need to take into account any harm caused by the oil that might eventually be carried on the railway. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch, as a lawyer in private practice, had represented Anschutz. The ruling comes after President Donald Trumps vow to boost U.S. oil and gas drilling and move away from former President Joe Bidens focus on climate change. The administration announced last month that its speeding up environmental reviews of projects required under the same law at the center of the Utah case, compressing a process that typically takes a year or more into just weeks. The court’s decision gives agencies a green light to ignore the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decisions and avoid confronting them, said Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice. Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said opponents would continue to fight the Utah project. This disastrous decision to undermine our nations bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,” she said. The projects public partner applauded the ruling. It represents a turning point for rural Utahbringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability,” said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. By Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press Associated Press writer Hannah Schoenbaum contributed to this story.
Category:
E-Commerce
Donald Trump’s trade war got a lot more complicated Wednesday evening as a little-known, but powerful, federal court, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs and labeled those “Liberation Day” duties illegal. That, effectively, will put the majority of the Trump tariffs on hold. (The Trump administration is appealing the ruling.) It’s the latest zig-zag in what has been a dizzying trade war. Since Trump announced the tariffs on April 2, there have been threats, pauses, potential counter tariffs and no end to stock market volatility. Trump’s frequent walk back of his threats has even led to a new term on Wall Streetthe TACO trade, an acronym for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” So what does this ruling mean for consumers and businessesand the larger trade war? Here’s what you need to know. What did the U.S. Court of International Trade rule? The three-judge panel ruled Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs on imported goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court said Trump could only use the emergency powers of the IEEPA to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared. Most of the tariffs that have been announced fail to meet the requirements of the Act, said the court, which deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat. How long did the court give the Trump administration to reverse course on tariffs? The judges, who were appointed by Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump, gave the government 10 days to make the necessary administrative moves to do away with the tariffs. What does the Trump administration plan to do next? The White House has made it clear it will appeal this ruling. Trump could ask the Supreme Court to step in and block the ruling as soon as Friday, according to some reports. In the meantime, the Trump administration is seeking an emergency stay, asking the Court of International Trade to delay enforcement of the ruling would cause immediate irreparable harm to US foreign policy and national security.” Which tariffs would still be in effect? While the ruling blocked tariffs applied under the IEEPA, other import taxes, such as those that were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, will remain. That means the 25% tariffs on specific products such as automobiles, auto parts, steel and aluminum are still in effect, so prices on most vehicles are likely to stay inflated. In addition, the tariffs on specific items from China that were instituted during Trump’s first term (and were expanded under the Biden administration) will remain in effect. Could the tariffs be reinstated? Certainly, if the Trump administration wins its appeal, the tariffs could go back into effect. There are other routes the White House might take as well. Goldman Sachs notes Trump could use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs of up to 15%, for up to 150 days. And the U.S. Trade Representative could launch Section 301 investigations on trading partners, which would lay the groundwork for tariffs that have no limits on levels or duration after that investigation is complete. Could prices still go up? Because some tariffs remain in place, prices that have already increased are likely to stay higher. And with the added uncertainty of the ruling, retailers are unlikely to make any immediate changes until the White House announces its next course of action. Several retailers, including Walmart, have warned that tariffs will result in higher prices. Trump has lashed out at some of those, telling them to eat the tariffs How has the stock market reacted to the ruling against Trump’s tariffs? While stocks were broadly higher pre-market (up as much as 500 points on the Dow), the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 indexes were all largely flat in midday trading, due to the uncertainty that still surrounds tariffs. Traders appear skeptical that weve heard the last of tariffs from the Trump administration.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||