Month: July 2025

Steeper Road for Zero-Emissions Vehicles

From MasterResource

By Steve Goreham

“A recent survey by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that only 16% of potential buyers were either “likely” or “very likely” to buy a fully electric vehicle as their next car, … down from 25% in 2022 and was the lowest level of EV interest recorded by AAA surveys since 2019.”

The road to adoption of Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs) is growing steeper. For over two decades, states used incentives and mandates to try to force a transition from gasoline vehicles to ZEVs. But softening market demand, shifting federal policies, and poor economics threaten to halt the ZEV revolution in the United States.

Zero Emissions Vehicles are cars and trucks that produce no tailpipe emissions. These are either electric vehicles (EVs) or hydrogen vehicles. California is the only state with a significant number of hydrogen cars, but its hydrogen car population is declining, so ZEVs mean EVs in practice.

Air pollution reached hazardous levels in the 1950s. The expanding population and automobile fleet in Los Angeles generated recurring episodes of smog, reducing visibility, causing nausea, and burning eyes. As a child, I recall having our car windows coated by pollutants from the steel mills of Gary, Indiana during a drive-by, forcing us to stop to clean our windshield.

To combat worsening air pollution, all states enacted legislation by 1970. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963 and established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Early vehicle pollution regulations were enormously successful eliminating harmful vehicle exhaust. Unleaded gasoline, catalytic converters, and particulate filters dropped volatile organic compound emissions per mile by 98 percent from 1970 to 2023. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor remain the only significant gases exhausted from today’s gasoline vehicles.

With hazardous emissions all but eliminated, the primary purpose of ZEV regulations is to force a transition to electric vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2. The first Zero Emissions Vehicle regulation was adopted by California in 1990. Today, 22 states have ZEV regulations, many requiring up to 100 percent of new car sales to be EVs by a future date, such as 2050. But the US ZEV transition has stalled due to three factors—weakening demand, changing federal policies, and poor economics.

The US market share of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) in the second quarter of 2025 was only 7 percent of car sales, down from over 8 percent during last November, December, and January. BEV share in the US has been flat since spring 2023.

A recent survey by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that only 16% of potential buyers were either “likely” or “very likely” to buy a fully electric vehicle as their next car, while 63% were “unlikely/very unlikely.” The “likely/very likely” category was down from 25% in 2022 and was the lowest level of EV interest recorded by AAA surveys since 2019.

Under President Joe Biden, the federal government provided a wide array of tax credits, subsidies, and loans for EVs. President Donald Trump shifted policy efforts to “eliminate the electric vehicle mandate,” including ending subsidies and mandates and rolling back state ZEV regulations.

Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and President Trump signed it this month. The act eliminates tax credits for purchasing a new EV (up to $7,500) and a used EV (up to $4,000), effective September 30 of this year. Loss of tax credits will increase the cost of EVs, likely forcing US EV market share below 7% by the end of this year.

The 1970 Clean Air Act assigned responsibility for air pollution to the EPA but allowed the EPA to grant waivers to states for regulations that were stricter than federal limits. California has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. Other states are allowed to adopt California pollution regulations. State ZEV standards require a waiver from the EPA.

But in June, President Trump signed three resolutions that rescinded California’s ZEV mandates. The principal resolution revoked the Clean Air Act waiver to California that was granted during the Biden administration. The waiver had allowed the state’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which mandated that all light vehicles sold in California by 2035 must be zero emissions. The waiver also allowed Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and other states to adopt California’s regulations.

Another resolution signed by President Trump rescinded the EPA waiver that authorized California’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation, which began January 2024. The ACF forced new heavy-duty trucks registered in California to be zero-emissions. Prior to the Trump rollback, trucking companies wrestled with severe cost, weight, and vehicle range issues of electric trucks mandated by the regulation.

California immediately sued the federal government to restore the EPA waivers and revive ZEV mandates. But without a legal victory, state ZEV mandates are dead in the US, at least until a new federal administration is elected.

Without federal tax credits and state ZEV mandates, vehicle purchasers face the full brunt of the unfavorable economics of EVs.  Advantages of EVs include the ability to charge at home and lower cost of operation for small daily travel distances. But their economic disadvantages include higher purchase prices, heavier vehicle weight, shorter driving range, higher maintenance and repair costs, higher insurance costs, and rising licensing fees.

The average US electric car purchase price in May was $57,734, about 17% higher than the average price for a gasoline car. Cancellation of the EV purchase tax credit will push this difference to over 20%. Electric trucks and buses are two to three times as expensive as diesel alternatives.

Thousand-pound EV car batteries are needed for a driving range approaching that of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. As a result, EVs tend to be about 50% heavier than ICE cars. The 2024 Chevy Silverado EV weighs over 8,000 pounds, a four-ton pickup truck! Greater weight means that tires wear out sooner, raising maintenance costs. States receive no gasoline taxes from EVs, so states are now imposing EV license fees for road maintenance. EV road fees should be higher because of their weight.

Hertz Rental purchased 60,000 EVs, but found that maintenance, repair, and insurance costs were higher than ICE rentals, so they sold much of their EV fleet. An EV battery damaged in a collision must be replaced, a $5,000 to $20,000 charge. US insurance rates for EVs may be 70% higher.

Poor market demand, a halt to federal EV tax credits, the rollback of state ZEV regulations, and higher economic costs threaten to halt the ZEV revolution.

——————

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource are here.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/d3OLqnW

July 24, 2025 at 12:07AM

Department of Energy Terminates Taxpayer-Funded Financial Assistance for Grain Belt Express

From Energy.gov

The Department of Energy today announced the Loan Programs Office has terminated its conditional commitment for the Grain Belt Express Phase 1 project.

Energy.gov

WASHINGTON— The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the Loan Programs Office (LPO) has terminated its conditional commitment for the Grain Belt Express Phase 1 project, a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line intended to connect wind and solar capacity across Kansas and Missouri. The conditional commitment, which would have provided a taxpayer-funded loan guarantee of up to $4.9 billion dollars, was issued by the Biden administration in November 2024 – one of many conditional commitments that were rushed out the door in the final days of the Biden administration.

After a thorough review of the project’s financials, DOE found that the conditions necessary to issue the guarantee are unlikely to be met and it is not critical for the federal government to have a role in supporting this project. To ensure more responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources, DOE has terminated its conditional commitment.

DOE is conducting a review of every applicant and borrower – including the nearly $100 billion in closed loans and conditional commitments LPO made between Election Day 2024 to Inauguration Day 2025 – to ensure every single taxpayer dollar is being used to advance the best interest of the American people. This ongoing review positions LPO to move forward with a lower risk tolerance in lending practices and an uncompromising focus on expanding access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.

DOE remains focused on advancing projects that expand American energy dominance and deliver on President Trump’s commitment to lower energy prices for the American people.

###


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/eOnGAHb

July 23, 2025 at 08:05PM

ICJ Issues Biased Advice on Climate Change

Activists hoping the opinion from the ICJ’s judges will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change Image: Peter Dejong/AP Photo/picture alliance

The media is rampant today with headlines like these:

World Court says countries are legally obligated to curb emissions, protect climate, UN News

World’s top court says major polluters may need to pay reparations for climate harm, CNN

UN’s top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law, CBC

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change, BBC

Top U.N. Court Says Countries Must Act on Climate Change, New York Times

Etc., Etc., Etc.

I asked perplexity.ai: (bolds in answer supplied by perplexity)

Question: How did the ICJ address scientists disputing IPCC reports like Clintel in its climate advice?

Answer: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory proceedings on climate change, did not address or give consideration to scientists or groups—such as Clintel—who dispute the findings of the IPCC. Instead, the ICJ relied heavily and explicitly on the IPCC as the authoritative source on climate science throughout the process.

Key points from the available evidence:

  • The ICJ held a private meeting with IPCC scientists just before hearings began, reflecting the Court’s view of the IPCC as the “scientific pillar” of the climate change regime1.

  • This meeting was not part of the formal, public hearings and did not include scientists who dissent from the IPCC—states and organizations participating in the advisory proceedings had no opportunity to question or respond to IPCC scientists1.

  • The process was criticized for lacking transparency and procedural fairness precisely because it favored a single scientific perspective (the IPCC’s), with no indication that alternative scientific viewpoints were admitted or reviewed1.

  • The UN General Assembly’s request for the advisory opinion itself referenced the “utmost concern [for] the scientific consensus expressed” in the IPCC reports, reinforcing the Court’s mandate to treat the IPCC’s findings as the foundation for its analysis13.

  • Available commentaries and summaries of the ICJ process do not mention any engagement with scientists or organizations disputing IPCC conclusions, nor do they report that groups like Clintel were referenced or invited as experts13.

  • While the ICJ has, in rare past cases, consulted technical experts informally, in this climate case it only announced consultation with IPCC figures, reinforcing the exclusion of dissident scientific voices19.

In summary, the ICJ’s approach gave exclusive scientific authority to the IPCC and provided no forum, reference, or weight to scientists disputing its reports, such as those from Clintel13. The Court did not discuss or acknowledge the existence of such scientific disagreement in its process, instead treating the IPCC’s consensus as fact. This approach has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to incorporate procedural safeguards for alternative scientific views19.

Followup Question: Why might the World Court have misunderstood the legal status of the Paris Accord?

Answer: The World Court might have appeared to misunderstand or at least oversimplify the legal status of the Paris Agreement because the Agreement’s nature is complex and somewhat ambiguous under international law, blending legally binding procedural obligations with politically framed, flexible commitments that lack sharp enforcement mechanisms.

Key reasons explaining why the Court could be seen as misunderstanding or glossing over these complexities include:

  • Legal Flexibility and Lack of Enforcement: The Paris Agreement is a treaty with binding procedural obligations but lacks strong accountability measures, sanctions, or punitive mechanisms for non-compliance1. Articles 13 and 15 establish monitoring and compliance mechanisms that are explicitly “non-intrusive” and “non-punitive,” reflecting the Agreement’s flexible, voluntary essence rather than strict legal constraints on outcome1. Courts may struggle to treat such a hybrid treaty as fully binding in the traditional sense.

  • Ambiguity over Obligation Types: The Paris Agreement distinguishes between “obligations of conduct” (procedural duties) versus “obligations of result” (achieving emission cuts). It requires parties to submit NDCs and report on implementation but does not legally bind States to achieve specific emission targets or outcomes34. This ambiguity can lead to varying interpretations of the Agreement’s binding force.

  • Differing State Practices and Interpretations: There remains disagreement among states and experts about whether the Paris Agreement creates firm legal obligations to prevent climate change or is largely aspirational with voluntary commitments6. Some states perceive it as political guidance rather than a hard treaty, influencing how international bodies perceive its weight.

  • Constraints of International Litigation and Court Jurisdiction: International courts like the ICJ have limited jurisdiction and cannot enforce treaty provisions on states unwilling to submit to their authority1. This constrains how formally the Court can treat the Agreement’s legal status, especially when major emitters are outside its compulsory jurisdiction16. The Court’s advisory role means it clarifies law based on existing commitments but cannot enforce or create new obligations.

  • Interaction with Customary International Law: Some legal scholarship suggests that customary international law—independent but related to treaty law—may impose broader climate duties on states, which complicates whether the Court grounds its decisions on the Paris Agreement alone or on evolving international legal norms1.

In sum, the World Court may have been perceived as misunderstanding the Paris Agreement’s legal status because the Agreement is simultaneously a legally binding treaty in form with procedural and transparency obligations, yet it remains politically flexible, non-punitive, and ambiguous regarding enforcement or specific outcome obligations. This hybrid nature poses challenges for courts in characterizing it strictly as a binding treaty imposing strong legal duties, thus potentially giving the appearance of oversimplification or misunderstanding in the Court’s advice.

Therefore, the Court’s approach likely reflects the difficulty of interpreting a treaty designed to maximize participation through flexibility rather than strong binding commitments, rather than a simple misunderstanding of the Paris Agreement’s status1346.

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/W8fbtEx

July 23, 2025 at 04:59PM

CLAIM: Heatwaves to increase in frequency, duration under global warming

When I saw this press release from Portland State University, I knew I would not have to look far to spot the bias and/or error. First it’s a climate model, second, it’s the WORST climate model, CMIP6 -Anthony

Via Eurekalert:
As the climate becomes warmer on average, it makes intuitive sense that we will see more hot days and we’ve had predictions of this for some time. However, the duration of heatwaves — how many days in a row exceed a temperature that is unusually hot for a given region — can be very important for impacts on humans, livestock and ecosystems. Predicting how these durations will change under a long-term warming trend is more challenging because day-to-day temperatures are correlated — tomorrow’s temperatures have a dependence on today’s temperature.

This study takes this effect into account, along with the warming seen in current and historical observations and projected for the future by climate models for a wide range of land regions. Not only do the heatwave durations increase, but each additional increment of warming causes a larger increase in the typical length of long heat waves. In other words, if the next decade brings as much large-scale warming as a previous decade, the additional increase in heatwave durations would be even larger than we’ve experienced so far.

Abstract

Heatwaves are expected to both increase in frequency and duration under global warming. The probability distributions of heatwave durations are shaped by day-to-day correlations in temperature and so cannot be simply inferred from changes in the probabilities of daily temperature extremes. Here we show from statistical analysis of global historical and projected temperature data that changes in long-duration heatwaves increase nonlinearly with temperature. Specifically, from analysis informed by theory for autocorrelated fluctuations applied to European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Reanalysis v5 (ERA5) reanalysis and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate model simulations, we find that the nonlinearity results in acceleration of the rate increase with warming; that is, each increment of regional time-averaged warming increases the characteristic duration scale of long heatwaves more than the previous increment. We show that the curve for this acceleration can be approximately collapsed onto a single dependence across regions by normalizing by local temperature variability. Projections of future change can thus be compared to observations of recent change over part of their range, which supports the near-future-projected acceleration. We also find that the longest, most uncommon heatwaves for a given region have the greatest increase in likelihood, yielding a compounding source of nonlinear impacts.

Journal Nature Geoscience


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/IzcE3tD

July 23, 2025 at 04:04PM