SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
infrastructure investment and jobs act
Congress Urged to 'Stand Up for Itself' as Trump Admin Halts EV Charger Program
"Freezing these EV charging funds is yet another one of the Trump administration's unsound and illegal moves," said one climate advocate.
Feb 07, 2025
Climate campaigners are blasting the Trump administration's move to halt a $5 billion initiative to build electric vehicle chargers along highways across the United States and calling on Congress to fight back against the attack on the grant program from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program was established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Natural Resources Defense Council's Beth Hammon said in a Friday statement that "on a bipartisan basis, Congress funded this program to build a new vehicle charging network nationwide. The Trump administration does not have the authority to halt it capriciously."
Hammon, a senior vehicle charging advocate at the group, warned that "stopping funding midstream will result in chaos and delays in states across the nation. It will throw state efforts into turmoil, wreak havoc with the companies that install the chargers, and risk the jobs of their workers. The only winner from this chaos is the oil industry."
"This should not stand. Courts have already blocked the Trump administration's other illegal attempts to halt legally mandated funding," she added. "Congress needs to stand up for itself: This move and many others from the Trump administration steals away its constitutionally established spending authority."
Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, similarly declared Friday that "freezing these EV charging funds is yet another one of the Trump administration's unsound and illegal moves. This is an attack on bipartisan funding that Congress approved years ago and is driving investment and innovation in every state, with Texas as the largest beneficiary."
"Throwing out states' plans, which were carefully built together with business, utilities, and communities, only hurts America's growing clean energy economy," she stressed. "The NEVI program has helped the U.S. build out the infrastructure needed to support our nation's necessary transition to pollution-free vehicles. More electric vehicle charging means better public health, reduced climate emissions, good-paying green jobs, and healthier communities."
President Donald Trump has taken various anti-climate actions since Inauguration Day—declaring a "national energy emergency," ditching the Paris agreement again, and enabling new liquefied natural gas exports. One executive order calls for "terminating the Green New Deal," and directs agencies to pause disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 law, specifically mentioning the NEVI program.
Trump targeted the initiative despite his ties to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, head of the president's destructive Department of Government Efficiency. Wiredreported that the billionaire's "electric automobile company has been a recipient of $31 million in awards from the NEVI program, according to a database maintained by transportation officials, accounting for 6% of the money awarded so far."
The Federal Highway Administration on Thursday sent a letter—first reported by InsideEVs—informing state transportation departments that "the new leadership of the Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has decided to review the policies underlying the implementation of the NEVI Formula Program," and, as a result, "is also immediately suspending the approval of all" state deployment plans previously greenlit by the Biden administration.
As Heatmapdetailed:
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects—with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.
The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, "in order to not disrupt current financial commitments." But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.
The outlet noted that advocates expected Trump's attacks on the program won't survive legal challenges.
"This should be carefully scrutinized by states and the legal community," said Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action, "as it looks like an attempt to sabotage the program based on ideology that's dressed up in bureaucratic language about plan and guidance revisions."
Andrew Rogers, a former deputy administrator and chief counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, told Wired that "there is no legal basis for funds that have been apportioned to states to build projects being 'decertified' based on policy."
Paren chief analyst Loren McDonald also doesn't think that the Trump administration can legally suspend the program.
"I'm assuming the lawsuits from states will start soon, and this will go to court and Congress," McDonald toldPolitico. "But the Trump [administration] will succeed in just causing havoc and slowing things down for a while."
Already, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Nebraska have put their NEVI programs on hold.
Whether Congress—particuarly Democrats, who are the minority party in both chambers—will fight back is unclear. Hill Heat's Brad Johnson pointed out on the social media platform Bluesky that two dozen members of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted with Republicans to confirm Trump's DOT chief, Sean Duffy.
After 24 Senate Democrats joined all GOP to confirm climate denier Sean Duffy as Transportation Secretary, he illegally called for the shut down of the National Electric Vehicle Charging Program, established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
[image or embed]
— Brad Johnson ( @climatebrad.hillheat.com) February 6, 2025 at 11:36 PM
As Common Dreamsreported last month, right after Duffy was confirmed, the secretary directed DOT staff to immediately begin the process of rescinding or replacing former President Joe Biden's clean car pollution standards.
"These commonsense, popular fuel economy standards save drivers money at the pump and reduce dangerous pollution from vehicles," Sierra Club's García said at the time. "Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil to Benefit From Biden's Carbon Capture Tax Credits: Report
"Our report clearly lays out the way carbon capture tax credits rig the system in favor of the oil and gas industry to the tune of billions of dollars," one expert said.
Sep 18, 2024
As the U.S. moves to invest in climate solutions, is the money going toward projects that will meaningfully reduce emissions and transition the nation's energy system away from fossil fuels?
A report released Wednesday by worker-owned corporate accountability and environmental justice research organization Empower found that just 34 carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in Texas could receive between $3.2 billion and $33 billion in annual tax subsidies.
At the same time, most of the carbon dioxide pipelines in the state are managed by the major oil and gas companies like Kinder Morgan, Occidental Petroleum, and ExxonMobil that played a disproportionate role in creating the climate crisis in the first place.
"Carbon capture and storage is the most expensive and least effective carbon mitigation solution. It's really not where we need to be investing our money," said Paige Powell, the policy manager at Commission Shift, at a press briefing announcing the new research. "And the public dollars coming from the federal government to fossil fuel companies are our dollars, our taxpayer dollars that could be better spent elsewhere."
"I think it's important for us to ask ourselves, if carbon capture is receiving so much public dollars, why is there little public input?"
For its report, Empower turned up 98 carbon dioxide-related projects in the state of Texas, including 47 pipelines and 13 Class VI Geological Storage projects. These projects are currently primarily funded through tax breaks and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) subsidies; the report authors found little evidence of any private investments.
"Our report clearly lays out the way carbon capture tax credits rig the system in favor of the oil and gas industry to the tune of billions of dollars," Empower's Samuel Rosado said in a statement. "Public funding and tax breaks are the largest sources of revenue for CCS projects. Without the massive federal investment, the private sector deems most CCS projects unprofitable."
The main tax credit for CCS is the 45Q tax credit, which assigns a dollar amount for every metric ton of carbon dioxide captured and permanently stored. While this credit was first created by the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, the Inflation Reduction Act expanded it, raising the credit to $85 per metric ton. At the same time, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act earmarked more than $8 billion for the DOE's CCS programs.
"These are the key bills that were enacted that enabled CCS to be at least more financially available than it previously was," Rosado said in the briefing.
Yet climate and accountability advocates are concerned that the money is being misdirected.
Powell noted that CCS technology had been around for 50 years, but had failed to advance.
"All of these projects have been largely unprofitable, and they haven't expanded the way that renewables and other climate solutions have, primarily because the technology is problematic," Powell said. "It's unsafe, it's fraught with mechanical failures, and not to mention wildly expensive when compared to other climate solutions."
Dominic Chacon of the Texas Campaign for the Environment said that industry boosting of CCS amounted to a form of "greenwashing."
"It is essentially a marketing PR branding ploy to downplay the obvious risks associated with fossil fuels, to try and rebrand this industry as something that we need for the future," Chacon said.
Autumn Hanna, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that there was a history of fraud in past allocation of CCS subsidies.
"A Treasury investigation found that from 2010 to 2019, 90% of tax credit claimants failed to comply with IRS [Internal Revenue Service] and EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] requirements," Hanna said in a statement. "Instead of throwing good money after bad, we should focus our limited resources on climate solutions we know are safe and effective."
At the same time, most federal CCS subsidies actually ended up going toward injecting carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells in order to extract even more oil, which is currently the only profitable use of the technology.
"Continuing to funnel these subsidies and tax breaks to the oil companies, which mostly use it to extract more fossil fuels, really weakens its supposed climate benefits," Hanna said in the briefing.
In Texas specifically, there are concerns about the safety of CCS infrastructure and its impact on ecosystems and communities, given the state's weak regulatory culture.
"We need to chart a new course here in Texas and in Washington to incentivize climate solutions that actually work."
"Our state oil and gas regulator, the Railroad Commission of Texas, is reluctant to oversee the industry in a way that protects people and the environment," Powell said.
The Empower report found that 19 CCS projects overlap with at least 24 million acres of water, threatening both coastal and river environments. The report authors also ran into a lack of transparency.
After filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Environmental Protection Agency to access data about CCS projects, they received documents with entire pages redacted on the behest of the companies and with the permission of the EPA.
"This is very dangerous when it comes to corporate accountability and transparency on environmental issues, because entire pages were redacted from FOIA requests and public information requests that are incredibly important for communities and safety in these communities," Rosado said.
The advocates called for greater transparency and accountability around public financing for untested and expensive climate solutions.
"I think it's important for us to ask ourselves, if carbon capture is receiving so much public dollars, why is there little public input?" Chacon asked. "There is no public transparency on this technology."
Hanna called for putting "the breaks on the whole thing until we start to really answer some big questions that are out there instead of just autopilot expansions and extensions that carry huge costs and, again, leave us with these big questions and this lack of transparency and oversight."
Community organizations in the Lone Star State are petitioning the EPA to reject the Texas Railroad Commission's request to have primary oversight over CCS projects in the state.
"Allowing Texas to continue down this path is irresponsible and only serves oil and gas interests. That's why it's critical that the Environmental Protection Agency not hand over regulation of dangerous CCS projects to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which has shown that it's in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, which stand to profit while putting our communities at risk," Powell said in a statement. "We need to chart a new course here in Texas and in Washington to incentivize climate solutions that actually work."
To that end, Commission Shift is also urging concerned residents to comment on new EPA draft permits for CCS projects in the Permian Basin.
"Let them know we need an extension to review the permits and that we really just don't want these here in the Permian, it's not the right place for all these projects," Powell said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Climate Time Bomb': Infrastructure Law Funds Highways Over Public Transit
"If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification," said one analyst.
Feb 29, 2024
The law that the Biden administration has heralded as "a once-in-a-generation investment in America's infrastructure" that would help to "build a clean energy economy" has led to an explosion in state-level spending on highway expansion, leading one transportation advocacy group to project on Wednesday that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will result in more emissions from transport than if it hadn't passed.
The law, officially known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), gave state transportation officials discretion over how to spend money distributed by the $1.2 trillion package, but Transportation for America warned in a new analysis of 57,000 projects that the law has revealed itself to be a "climate time bomb," with more than half of the funds—about $70 billion—so far spent on resurfacing and expanding highways.
Only about $25 billion of the money dispersed to states has been spent on transit and passenger rail, even as Americans clamor for more public transportation options.
As Inequality.orgreported last week, a 2023 nationwide survey found that 71% of respondents believed the U.S. "should be shifting funding from highways to public transit," and 70% said such a shift would be better for people's "health, safety, and economy."
"Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
Just 18% said building more highways and highway lanes would reduce traffic, cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions—of which transportation is already the biggest source globally and in the United States.
Transportation for America found that unless states change course, highway expansions paid for by the IIJA will lead to more than 178 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 and will be only slightly offset by emissions-reducing measures in the law.
"While the IIJA could have been a win for the environment, across the country, states have instead used this once-in-a-generation level of funding to expand roadways the same way they've been doing for years," wrote Corrigan Salerno, a policy associate for the group. "Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
The group noted that the Biden administration advised states to prioritize highway repairs over expansion, but states including Texas and California have forged ahead with plans to increase congested roads' capacity for more vehicles.
"So much of the decision making falls to state departments of transportation," Mary Buchanan, research and policy manager at TransitCenter toldThe Guardian. "There are essentially 50 opportunities to get this right, I guess, or to potentially get it wrong, in terms of how money is being spent."
The analysis was released a day after an Indiana state House committee approved a bill delaying implementation of dedicated bus lanes in Indianapolis to "study the transportation option," with Republicans in favor of the bill saying the state needs to have an "overall conversation about road funding."
One Democratic lawmaker who has advocated for more public transit options in the city "broke into tears," according to local public broadcasting affiliate WFYI, as he called the decision "really, really, really bad public policy."
Indianapolis residents had testified for months against the bill, WFYI reported.
Salerno called on the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress to "explore every means available" to reduce transportation emissions.
"Congress needs to get real—the largest and most growing sector of emissions is transportation," Salerno wrote. "If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification—not just the same strategies that got us in this position in the first place."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular