Latest news with #JoannaSlaney
CBS News
01-07-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Senate removes excise tax on renewable energy industry from Trump domestic policy bill
The Senate bill containing President Trump's domestic policy agenda at the last minute eliminated a new excise tax that would have hammered the renewable energy industry, a move that likely ensured Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would back the measure. The excise tax would have been imposed on wind and solar energy projects constructed with a certain percentage of materials sourced from prohibited foreign countries, like China. Consumers would see their energy prices rise by around 8% to 10%, and the provision would have cost clean energy businesses an additional $4-$7 billion by 2036, according to an analysis by the American Clean Power Association. The tax was designed to boost domestic manufacturing, but developing these projects by working around Chinese components was likely to be cost prohibitive. The Senate bill also made another key concession: it would phase out wind and solar tax credits for clean energy development on a slower timeline than originally proposed, ensuring that projects that have already been planned, financed and approved would still receive the applicable tax credit, as long as they begin construction before June 2026, or are operational by the end of 2027. But this is still a major modification from the original timeline for the wind and solar tax credit — which wasn't due to expire until 2032 — and it still puts clean energy developers in peril, according to environmental groups. Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in an email to CBS News, "By making it much, much harder to build new clean energy projects, the bill is effectively cutting off supply of cheap energy right when the U.S. needs it the most." Environmental groups said few gains were to be found in the bill. "If there's a bright spot, it is that the Senate bill would preserve tax credits for newer technologies like advanced nuclear, battery storage, geothermal energy, and carbon capture, as well as advanced manufacturing," Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said in a statement. The final bill passed by the Senate would largely terminate numerous tax incentives from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act for clean energy, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency programs that benefited consumers. It would end tax credits for new and used electric vehicles, installation of home EV charging equipment and insulation or energy efficient heating and cooling systems. The bill also ends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which gives funding to nonprofit organizations providing financing for projects that reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in communities. A new analysis by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions predicted that the changes in the Senate bill would eliminate more than 1.6 million jobs, cause more than $290 billion in lost GDP, increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 8% by 2035 and increase the cost of energy by 4% per megawatt. Climate and environmental groups expressed concern about how the reduction of key tax incentives for clean energy production and energy efficiency will affect the public. "The bill will raise energy costs and make it harder to keep the lights on," said Steven Nadel in a statement, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "No one asked Congress to make their energy bills even higher. Taking away incentives for energy-saving improvements would raise monthly bills for families and businesses. It will only exacerbate the growing strain on the electric grid." The bill now returns to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson is intent on meeting Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the bill to President Trump's desk. To do so, the House will have to pass the Senate version unchanged. Any alteration would mean the bill would have to be considered by a conference committee to reconcile the differences. That's what Murkowski would prefer. "We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination," she told reporters Tuesday. "My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
The GOP says states' rights matter — unless it's California
This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions. The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks. Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board. 'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver. 'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.' At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.' Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.' 'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.' Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states. He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.' California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden's administration. Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.' 'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.'
Vox
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Vox
The GOP says states' rights matter — unless it's California
California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, and 100 percent by Grist This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions. The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks. Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board. 'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver. 'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.' At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.' Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.' 'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.' Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states. He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.' California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden's administration. Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.' 'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
The Senate just voted to block California's gas car ban
For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's longstanding leadership in regulating air emissions. The U.S. Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51 to 44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks, and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks. Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board. 'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' said Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, in a statement. On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way Senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority, rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver. 'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA Law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close,' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.' At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting Congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Republican Senator MIke Lee of Utah appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.' Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. California Senator Alex Padilla said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rulebook.' 'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.' Dan Farber, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements, or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states. He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.' California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019, during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by the Biden administration. Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.' 'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Governor Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Senate just voted to block California's gas car ban on May 22, 2025.
