Drillers, unions urge US senators to preserve hydrogen credit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A coalition of nearly 250 companies and business and labor groups on Thursday urged top U.S. Republican senators to preserve a credit for the emerging hydrogen fuel industry as they hash out President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill.
Oil and gas lobbying group the American Petroleum Institute, a local unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and DuPont urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator Mike Crapo to extend the construction deadline to December 31, 2029 for hydrogen projects to receive a tax break.
The Senate is debating its version of the bill after the House of Representatives terminated the so-called 45V credit for any project which begins construction after the last day of 2025.
"If this course of action is adopted by the Senate, it will drive tens of billions of dollars in planned private sector investments out of the United States and into other countries," the groups said in a letter to the senators, dated June 5. "Failing to act now by preserving 45V means ceding the future of hydrogen to China."
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative also signed the letter.
House Republicans slashed the credits which had been included the Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate legislation signed by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Under the IRA, hydrogen producers got tax credits for projects that began construction before 2033.
Industry analysts say clean hydrogen, or hydrogen produced from non-fossil energy sources, or natural gas paired with technology to capture carbon emissions and store them underground, is needed to decarbonize heavy industry and some vehicles.
The letter said clarity from lawmakers would spur tens of billions of dollars in private capital, boost domestic manufacturing, and create long-term employment in construction, operations, and technology.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Zeekr says it did not sell or register zero-mileage used cars
BEIJING (Reuters) -Chinese automotive firm Zeekr said in a statement on Sunday that used cars described in media reports as having zero mileage were exhibition cars that were insured, but it did not sell or register them. The company has set up a team to investigate and make improvements, Zeekr said, adding that it opposed the sale of zero-mileage used cars. On Saturday, Reuters and state-backed China Securities Journal newspaper had reported that Zeekr had insured cars before selling them to buyers, inflating sales.
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
