U.S. Electric Car Sales Climb Sharply Despite Shortages

A scarcity of semiconductors and raw materials held back production, but buyers remain enthusiastic.

By Jack Ewing, The New York Times, July 14, 2022

Americans are buying electric vehicles at a record pace, undeterred by rising prices and long waits for delivery, a further indication that the twilight of the internal combustion engine is on the horizon.

Vehicles that run on batteries accounted for 5.6 percent of new-car sales from April through June, still a small slice of the market but twice the share a year ago, according to Cox Automotive, an industry consulting firm. Overall, new-car sales declined 20 percent.

Companies like Tesla, Ford Motor and Volkswagen could have delivered more electric cars if they had been able to build them faster. The carmakers struggled with shortages of semiconductors, which are even more essential to electric cars than to gasoline vehicles, while prices soared for lithium and other raw materials needed for batteries.

“The transformation is real,” said John Lawler, the chief financial officer of Ford, which sold 15,300 electric cars from April through June, a 140 percent increase from a year earlier. “Electric vehicle demand is well beyond what we can supply.”

At the same time, the popularity of electric vehicles has taken the industry by surprise and exposed deficiencies that could slow the transition to battery power, which is considered essential to containing climate change.

One of the lessons for Ford and other carmakers is that the switch to electric vehicles requires them to fundamentally remake their factory and supply networks. To make the transition, they have begun underwriting makers of advanced batteries, for example, and are dealing directly with mining companies to secure scarce raw materials. Ford is planning a $5.6 billion complex near Memphis to build electric vehicles.

Carmakers and suppliers have announced plans to invest more than $500 billion worldwide through 2026 to upgrade their factory networks and supply chains, according to AlixPartners, a consultancy. But it will take several years for manufacturing capacity to meet demand.

Lack of public chargers is another impediment, especially for apartment dwellers who lack garages or private driveways where they can plug in. Numerous companies are competing to build networks, and the Biden administration is providing funding, but they are playing catch-up.

“The market is ahead of the charging network,” said Cathy Zoi, the chief executive of EVgo, which operates more than 850 fast-charging stations in the United States.

Electric cars remain much more costly than their gasoline counterparts and are out of reach for many buyers, even when the fuel savings are factored in. The average price for an electric vehicle in the United States is about $66,000, compared with $46,000 for all new cars. One reason is the cost of batteries, which rose in price because of shortages of raw materials after declining for years.

“To get to 15 percent of the market, or 25 percent or 50 percent, we are going to have to appeal to a much broader segment of the marketplace,” said John Bozzella, the president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry group. “That to me is where the challenge is.”

While electric vehicle sales in the United States are growing fast, Europe and China remain far ahead. Battery-powered vehicles account for more than 10 percent of new cars sold in Europe and around 20 percent in China. Government quotas and subsidies play a large role, but there is also a greater selection of lower-priced models.

Government policy also plays a large role in the United States. California requires manufacturers to sell a certain number of zero-emission vehicles, and residents there drive nearly 40 percent of electric cars on the road in the United States. But efforts by the Biden administration to promote electric vehicles nationwide, by offering electric car buyers tax credits worth up to $12,500, for example, have run into strong opposition in Congress.

Sales in the United States will gain momentum as battery-powered cars become more commonplace, said Felipe Smolka, a partner at the consulting firm EY who follows the electric vehicle market. People will become reluctant to buy cars powered by fossil fuels, he said, out of fear they could become obsolete and lose their resale value. Carmakers have largely stopped investing in internal combustion engine technology.

“The energy behind this transition is already at a point where there is no return,” Mr. Smolka said.

Not all carmakers are sharing equally in the electric vehicle boom. Among the traditional automakers, there is an increasing divide between those that have begun selling vehicles that can compete with Tesla’s popular models and those that have not.

Major carmakers like Toyota, Honda and Stellantis, the maker of Jeep, Chrysler and Ram vehicles, are largely absent from the pure electric vehicle market in the United States, although they have announced plans for battery-powered models. Toyota began selling a battery-powered sport utility vehicle, the bZ4X, this year but recalled some of those cars in June because of a risk that the wheels could come off.

Being early to market is no guarantee of success. The Nissan Leaf was one of the first electric vehicles to be mass produced, but the model’s U.S. sales totaled only 3,300 during the second quarter, a 30 percent decline from a year earlier. Nissan is replacing the Leaf with the Ariya, an electric S.U.V. that will go on sale in the fall.

General Motors, once regarded as an E.V. leader among traditional carmakers, was knocked off track last year by a recall of its electric Bolt. There was a risk the batteries could catch on fire. G.M. sold fewer than 500 Bolts in the first quarter of 2022. In the second quarter, sales rebounded to 7,300, but that was still a 20 percent decline from the second quarter of 2021.

For companies with an electric vehicle lineup, the technological transformation underway is an opportunity to raise their profiles. Ford and the South Korean carmakers Hyundai and Kia, which are corporate siblings, have been the most popular E.V. brands in the United States this year after Tesla.

Tesla remains the company to beat, but it is showing signs of vulnerability. The company delivered more than 254,000 vehicles in the second quarter, down from 310,000 in the first quarter because of shutdowns and supply chain problems that affected its factory in Shanghai.

Tesla sales in the second quarter were up 26 percent from a year earlier, and the company said it built more cars in June than ever in its history, a sign that supply problems are easing.

Still, Tesla faces intensifying competition in China, which has the world’s largest car market. BYD, a Chinese automaker that also produces batteries, sold 70,000 pure electric vehicles worldwide in June alone. In Europe, Tesla trailed Volkswagen, Stellantis and Hyundai/Kia in electric vehicle sales during the first five months of 2022, according to Schmidt Automotive Research in Berlin. (Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y remained the most popular electric cars in Europe.)

Tesla’s command of the market will slip as traditional automakers introduce dozens of electric models, analysts at Bank of America said in a recent report. They predicted that Tesla’s share of electric car sales worldwide would plummet to 11 percent by 2025, from 70 percent last year.

“Tesla's dominance in this still nascent market segment may be coming to an end,” the Bank of America analysts said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/business/electric-car-sales.html?searchResultPosition=1

The Supreme Court’s E.P.A. Decision Is More Gloom Than Doom

Op-ed by David Wallace-Wells, The New York Times, July 1, 2022

Many of the headlines about the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday have suggested an existential setback: a major blow to American decarbonization and global climate ambition. But the effect is less like a nail in the coffin and more like putting an additional set of brakes on an already stalled project. For the time being, at least, the decision functions chiefly to cement the status quo.

The problem is, the status quo is bad enough. Cristiana Figueres, a former head of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, recently described the world’s current trajectory as “a suicidal path,” and globally, the United States was already the most conspicuous laggard. Without meaningful legislative progress in the coming months, President Biden will have managed to deliver on only 9 percent of his climate promises.

Without them, the country will fall far short of its international pledges, which, given the scale of American emissions, will make it almost impossible for the world as a whole to fulfill its already unlikely targets. If Republicans win control of Congress in the November midterms, then the window on the prospect of such legislation may be shut for at least a few years. The E.P.A. decision may feel like a back breaker, but the policy path to responsible, aggressive emissions reductions looked pretty broken yesterday.

Of course, the right question isn’t “Are we moving in the right direction or the wrong one or standing still?” That’s because, given the urgency of decarbonization and the pressing threat of dramatic climate effects, time is the most precious commodity. That’s the meaning of the writer and activist Bill McKibben’s famous phrase “Winning slowly is the same as losing.”

The Supreme Court decision is a bit worse than that, though, in how it restricts the E.P.A.’s ability to effectively regulate dirty energy rapidly off the grid without the explicit support of Congress. But this case was unusual in that it applied to potential powers rather than ongoing policy or law and because that kind of power has never been and is not now being exercised by the agency, the judgment applies more to hypothetical futures than to present-tense policy.

And while every climate scientist and advocate would tell you that the country needs to do much, much more to curb emissions, West Virginia v. E.P.A. applies centrally to powers the agency is not presently exercising and takes some possible future approaches away from regulators without turning back the clock, as it did last week in overturning Roe v. Wade. In recent weeks, when climate-conscious analysts surveyed the range of possible outcomes, this was not one of the apocalyptic possibilities, and the agency has retained some authority to regulate greenhouse gases — just not in the comprehensive, generation-shifting way designed under President Barack Obama’s never-realized Clean Power Plan. The judgment even affirmed that greenhouse gases are a public danger.

And so given how unlikely near-term American policy progress seemed to begin with, the more profound effect of West Virginia may ultimately be cultural, shifting the climate mood in two ways: some mix of new outrage, frustration and despair among those Americans holding out hope for political and policy reversals and an embrace of global climate leadership, and eye-rolling and exasperation by those abroad who are already inclined to see the United States as the world’s biggest climate hypocrite.

At home, a majority of Americans want to see more done by Congress (61 percent), the president (52 percent) and corporations (70 percent), according to the gold-standard polling conducted by Yale Climate Communications last fall, which also found that a record share of the country (33 percent) was “alarmed” about warming. For the alarmed — and for the many more Americans who described themselves as “concerned” — the decision may confirm an intuitive sense, pieced together also from setbacks well beyond climate, that the system is broken, with power aligned against action and every avenue of potential progress barricaded by the forces of inertia. For the country’s highest court to consider the urgent challenge of warming and say, in effect, that we should be doing less rather than more — whatever the immediate policy effect — comes as a profound psychological blow.

Indeed, this term, the supermajority conservative court seems to be taking over the role long played by Congress as the public face of federal dysfunction and stalemate — at best. On reproductive rights and guns, the picture is darker still.

On climate, as recently as several years ago, advocates had hopes of seeing a much different case reach the court and radically reshape the climate priorities of the country. In Juliana v. United States, often called Kids v. Climate, a group of underage litigants hoped to establish a younger generation’s fundamental right to a future undisturbed by the climate effects imposed by earlier generations. Given the makeup of the court even then, this was probably always a somewhat optimistic hope. (At the moment, Juliana is stalled in U.S. District Court.) Instead, West Virginia v. E.P.A. is the climate case — and decision — the country got. The mood is grim, and “We’re only as screwed as we were yesterday” is not much of a comfort or a rallying cry.

Internationally, the climate reputation of the United States is already somewhat tattered. The United States is the world’s largest producer of oil, its second-largest producer of gas, its third-largest consumer of coal and also its largest historical emitter by an outrageous margin, responsible for about twice as much carbon damage already done to the planet as any other country on Earth. Per capita, the country has done five or six times as much damage as China, which is the second-most responsible nation; given likely emissions curves this century, that gap will probably never close.

And yet — despite that responsibility, despite the United States’ early environmental action a half-century ago and despite the fact that, thanks to abundant land and renewable resources, it may now be the best positioned in the world to race through a power transition, which would also generate considerable prosperity — the United States pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, undermined negotiations in Copenhagen and withdrew at least briefly from the Paris climate accord.

Domestically, it failed to pass major climate legislation with a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority in 2009 and failed again in 2021 and so far in 2022, with a slimmer majority but still with control of both Congress and the White House. And according to at least one recent assessment from O.D.I. Climate and the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, it has fallen much more spectacularly short in delivering on its own promises of climate finance aid to the developing world than any other nation in the Global North — a shortfall of more than $40 billion in 2020, when no other country missed its mark by even $5 billion.

This is all terrible. But it isn’t much changed by West Virginia v. E.P.A., either. U.S. emissions are not likely to rise. The powers the judgment restricts were never actually exercised under the Clean Power Plan. The Affordable Clean Energy Rule, devised by President Donald Trump as a fossil-fuel-friendly alternative to the C.P.P., is not in effect, either. And American emissions have fallen faster without a cap-and-trade program and without the C.P.P. than advocates of either suggested was possible under those programs.

That’s not to say that where things stood yesterday is an encouraging place to be or that the decision is meaningless. It could well prove a significant setback in the years ahead, though presumably only under a more aggressive or more empowered Democratic administration than this one.

For the time being, it probably changes more about the way we might imagine possible climate futures than anything about the one we are building today through inaction. But when it’s all hands on deck, you don’t want one hand tied behind your back. Which is why, for those keeping a close eye on the ever shortening timelines for action, today probably feels considerably more restrictive still — a handcuffing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/environment/supreme-court-climate-change-west-virginia-epa.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Global climate goal could be in peril without carbon price reform

By Simon Jessop and Susanna Twidale, Reuters, June 22, 2022

LONDON— Investors managing $10.6 trillion on Wednesday said an overhaul of international carbon pricing policies was necessary to prevent the world missing a goal to limit climate change.

As part of a global effort to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, more governments are seeking to place a price on carbon to lower emissions by increasing the cost of producing them.

But less than 25% of global emissions are covered by a carbon price whose level varies greatly between regions and is mostly too low to effect change.

In a paper released ahead of a G7 Leaders Summit in Berlin starting Sunday, the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) laid out five principles to underpin a redesign of government policies and encourage a shift from high-emission activities.

It said policymakers could introduce legally-binding carbon prices that are set in line with the science of climate change.

A report by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices found carbon prices needed to be in the $50-$100 tonne range by 2030 to keep global heating below 2 degrees Celsius.

To protect those in disadvantaged communities affected by the transition, governments should design carbon pricing policies that reduce the impact, including through retraining, lump sum transfers or lower income taxes, the NZAOA said.

Governments must also provide a more predictable price signal to help businesses plan for the transition to a low-carbon economy, such as by establishing price corridors that show the direction of travel over time.

To protect domestic heavy emitters as they transition, and prevent carbon leakage, whereby industry moves to jurisdications where they are not penalised for polluting, governments could use carbon border adjustment mechanisms, as has been proposed by the European Union.

They added that greater international cooperations could be forged through "climate clubs" of countries working together on the issue.

"The Alliance believes governments should implement carbon pricing in line with the principles... providing a basis for an economy-wide alignment to the Paris Agreement goals," the group said in a white paper.

The 2015 Paris climate agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below 2C and ideally 1.5C.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/global-climate-goal-could-be-peril-without-carbon-price-reform-2022-06-22/

Republican Drive to Tilt Courts Against Climate Action Reaches a Crucial Moment

A Supreme Court environmental case being decided this month is the product of a coordinated, multiyear strategy by Republican attorneys general and conservative allies.

By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, June 19, 2022

WASHINGTON — Within days, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision that could severely limit the federal government’s authority to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants — pollution that is dangerously heating the planet.

But it’s only a start.

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, is the product of a coordinated, multiyear strategy by Republican attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders, several with ties to the oil and coal industries, to use the judicial system to rewrite environmental law, weakening the executive branch’s ability to tackle global warming.

Coming up through the federal courts are more climate cases, some featuring novel legal arguments, each carefully selected for its potential to block the government’s ability to regulate industries and businesses that produce greenhouse gases.

“The West Virginia vs. E.P.A. case is unusual, but it’s emblematic of the bigger picture. A.G.s are willing to use these unusual strategies more,” said Paul Nolette, a professor of political science at Marquette University who has studied state attorneys general. “And the strategies are becoming more and more sophisticated.”

The plaintiffs want to hem in what they call the administrative state, the E.P.A. and other federal agencies that set rules and regulations that affect the American economy. That should be the role of Congress, which is more accountable to voters, said Jeff Landry, the Louisiana attorney general and one of the leaders of the Republican group bringing the lawsuits.

But Congress has barely addressed the issue of climate change. Instead, for decades it has delegated authority to the agencies because it lacks the expertise possessed by the specialists who write complicated rules and regulations and who can respond quickly to changing science, particularly when Capitol Hill is gridlocked.

West Virginia v. E.P.A., No. 20–1530 on the court docket, is also notable for the tangle of connections between the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court justices who will decide their case. The Republican plaintiffs share many of the same donors behind efforts to nominate and confirm five of the Republicans on the bench — John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“It’s a pincer move,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and a former senior Justice Department official. “They are teeing up the attorneys to bring the litigation before the same judges that they handpicked.”

The pattern is repeated in other climate cases filed by the Republican attorneys general and now advancing through the lower courts: The plaintiffs are supported by the same network of conservative donors who helped former President Donald J. Trump place more than 200 federal judges, many now in position to rule on the climate cases in the coming year.

At least two of the cases feature an unusual approach that demonstrates the aggressive nature of the legal campaign. In those suits, the plaintiffs are challenging regulations or policies that don’t yet exist. They want to pre-empt efforts by President Biden to deliver on his promise to pivot the country away from fossil fuels, while at the same time aiming to prevent a future president from trying anything similar.

The Stakes for Climate

Victory for the plaintiffs in these cases would mean the federal government could not dramatically restrict tailpipe emissions because of vehicles’ impact on climate, even though transportation is the country’s largest source of greenhouse gases.

The government also would not be able to force electric utilities to replace fossil fuel-fired power plants, the second-largest source of planet warming pollution, with wind and solar power.

And the executive branch could not consider the economic costs of climate change when evaluating whether to approve a new oil pipeline or similar project or environmental rule.

Those limitations on climate action in the United States, which has pumped more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than any other nation, would quite likely doom the world’s goal of cutting enough emissions to keep the planet from heating up more than an average of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with the preindustrial age. That is the threshold beyond which scientists say the likelihood of catastrophic hurricanes, drought, heat waves and wildfires significantly increases. The Earth has already warmed an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.

“If the Supreme Court uses this as an opportunity to really squash E.P.A.’s ability to regulate on climate change, it will seriously impede U.S. progress toward solving the problem,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

The ultimate goal of the Republican activists, people involved in the effort say, is to overturn the legal doctrine by which Congress has delegated authority to federal agencies to regulate the environment, health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

Known as “Chevron deference,” after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, that doctrine holds that courts must defer to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes by federal agencies on the theory that agencies have more expertise than judges and are more accountable to voters. “Judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of the government,” Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his opinion for a unanimous court.

But many conservatives say the decision violates the separation of powers by allowing executive branch officials rather than judges to say what the law is. In one of his most famous opinions as an appeals court judge, Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote that Chevron allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power.”

The constitutional dispute is not necessarily political, because Chevron deference applies to agency actions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But conservative hostility to the doctrine may be partly rooted in distrust of entrenched bureaucracies and certain kinds of expertise.

The month after Mr. Trump took office, his chief strategist at the time, Stephen K. Bannon, summed up one of their top objectives as the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

Chevron deference has long been a target of conservatives, according to Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who worked in the Trump White House. “The originalist crew has been steadily moving toward significantly rewriting Chevron for years,” he wrote in an email. “They are about to be rewarded with a substantial and material victory.”

Filling the Bench

The roots of that victory were planted in 2015, when Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, became the Senate majority leader and led his party in a sustained campaign to deny President Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint federal judges.

He refused to confirm nominees, waiting for a Republican administration to fill the courts with judges who shared his belief in minimal government regulation. He was also motivated by the dying coal industry in Kentucky, which could be wiped out by new E.P.A. rules aimed at slowing pollution from fossil fuels.

“Fighting the E.P.A. is ‘Mom and apple pie’ in Kentucky,” said Neil Chatterjee, Mr. McConnell’s former energy policy aide.

Mr. McConnell’s effort ensured that Mr. Trump inherited not just an open Supreme Court seat but 107 additional judicial vacancies.

Then in stepped Leonard A. Leo.

At the time, Mr. Leo was executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group that helped secure the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito to the Supreme Court and that has served as the ideological and tactical engine behind efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Some of the many donors to the Federalist Society include Koch Industries, which has fought climate action; the Sarah Scaife Foundation, created by the heirs to the Mellon oil, aluminum and banking fortune; and Chevron, the oil giant and plaintiff in the case that created Chevron deference.

Mr. Leo worked with Donald F. McGahn II, Mr. Trump’s White House counsel and another longtime Federalist Society member, to vet and recommend judicial candidates to the president.

Mr. McGahn was forthright about his criteria. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2018, Mr. McGahn was asked about the White House focus on undoing Chevron. “Well, it’s not a coincidence,” he said. “It’s part of a larger, larger plan, I suppose.”

“There is a coherent plan here where, actually, the judicial selection and the deregulatory efforts are really the flip side of the same coin,” Mr. McGahn added.

Mr. Leo also helped steer the Judicial Crisis Network, a nonprofit advocacy group that ran campaigns to help Associate Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett reach the Supreme Court, and to install dozens of other like-minded judges on lower courts.

In total, Mr. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, 54 appeals court judges, and 174 district court judges. By comparison, Mr. Biden has, to date, appointed 68 federal judges.

Tangled Connections

In 2020, Mr. Leo stepped down as head of the Federalist Society to run CRC Advisors, a right-wing political strategy firm. In that role, he has operated at the center of a constellation of advocacy groups and undisclosed donors that share a similar goal: Use the courts to advance conservative and libertarian causes.

One of CRC Advisors’ biggest clients is the Republican Attorneys General Association. Another is the Concord Fund, the advocacy group that is the latest incarnation of the Judicial Crisis Network. The fund is also the largest financial backer, by far, of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

Since 2014, the Judicial Crisis Network, now the Concord Fund, has poured more than $17 million into the campaigns of the Republican attorneys general. In the current electoral cycle, the Concord Fund has contributed $3.5 million, several times more than the next biggest donor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with $800,000.

The identities of the fund’s donors are hidden from the public; the fund is not legally required to disclose them.

Relationships between untraceable money, politicians and the judiciary are not unusual. Like its Republican counterpart, the Democratic Attorneys General Association is a political action committee that raises money to help members win elections. The attorneys general in both parties pursue cases that are aligned with the interests of their donors and constituencies. During the Trump administration, Democratic attorneys general repeatedly, and often successfully, fought dozens of Mr. Trump’s policies, particularly his weakening of environmental rules.

But legal experts say that the Republican attorneys general and their allies have taken such strategies to a new level, in their funding and their tactics.

“They’ve created out of whole cloth a new approach to litigating environmental regulations, and they’ve found sympathetic judges,” said Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University.

Mr. Leo and Mr. McGahn and did not respond to requests for interviews. Mr. McConnell declined an interview request.

Neomi Rao, 49, is typical of the judges given lifetime appointments by Mr. Trump with support from Mr. Leo and his network. Following discussions with Mr. McGahn, Ms. Rao was nominated in 2018 to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after he was elevated to the Supreme Court.

The D.C. Circuit Court is considered the second-most powerful court in the country because it hears challenges to federal environmental, health, and safety regulations.

Ms. Rao had never served as a judge and had never tried a case. But she had impeccable conservative credentials and a dislike of government regulation.

A member of the Federalist Society since 1996, Ms. Rao had clerked for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and worked in the George W. Bush administration. She taught at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and founded the Center for the Study of the Administrative State, which gathers critics of federal regulation. She told Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that she had consulted with Mr. Leo before founding the center and later met with representatives of the Koch Foundation.

In 2017, she was tapped by Mr. Trump to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an obscure but powerful office through which proposed federal regulations must pass. From that perch, she oversaw an aggressive regulatory rollback, including the weakening or elimination of more than 100 environmental rules.

Ms. Rao’s office sometimes pushed the Trump team to go even further. When Mr. Trump's first E.P.A. chief proposed to weaken regulation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that leaks from oil and gas wells, Ms. Rao’s office suggested loosening the rule even further, allowing more pollution into the atmosphere.

At least two climate cases are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has eight judges appointed by Democratic presidents, nine judges chosen by Republicans, including three Trump appointees, and one vacancy.

Another Trump appointee on that bench is Justin Walker, a former protégé of Mr. McConnell’s and a fellow Kentuckian who wrote a 2021 dissenting opinion in the West Virginia v. E.P.A. case in which he argued that the agency lacked the authority to regulate pollution that causes climate change.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has seven judges appointed by Democratic presidents and 19 chosen by Republicans, including six Trump appointees. It’s where the Republican attorneys general have filed a challenge to the government’s ability to consider the economic cost of climate change when making environmental decisions.

On that bench is Andrew Oldham, a Trump pick who was once deputy attorney general of Texas. In that role, he worked on the West Virginia vs. E.P.A. climate case, and said in a 2016 speech that climate regulation and the E.P.A. itself are “just utterly and fundamentally illegitimate.”

To the same panel, Mr. Trump appointed Don Willett, a former fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative research organization that has received substantial funding from Charles and David Koch and aims to “explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” by arguing that they shield the poor from higher energy costs.

Judges Rao, Walker, Oldham and Willett did not respond to requests for interviews.

A New Legal Approach

Of the 27 Republican attorneys general, a core group from fossil fuel states is leading the coordinated legal challenges: Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Ken Paxton of Texas and Mr. Landry from Louisiana.

They meet regularly among themselves and with the oil, gas and coal industries, Mr. Landry said in an interview. “It would be great if we could see an overturning of Chevron,” he said.

The West Virginia case is largely concerned with a line of attack related to Chevron, also rooted in arguments about the separation of powers, which holds that Congress should use plain and direct language if it is to authorize sweeping actions by administrative agencies that could transform the economy.

“What we’re looking to do is to make sure that the right people under our constitutional system make the correct decisions,” Mr. Morrisey, who argued the West Virginia v. E.P.A. case before the Supreme Court, said during a public appearance in Washington in February. “These agencies, these federal agencies, don’t have the ability to act solely on their own without getting a clear statement from Congress. Delegation matters.”

Lined up behind the West Virginia power plant suit is another case in the D.C. Circuit Court brought by 15 attorneys general challenging a 2021 federal rule designed to cut auto pollution by compelling automakers to sell more electric vehicles.

Mr. Paxton of Texas calls the auto pollution rule a “war against fossil fuels” that will harm “the livelihoods of hard-working Texans.”

Should that challenge succeed, more than a dozen Democratic-governed states are expected to impose tougher state-level auto pollution standards. But the Republican attorneys general have already filed a suit in the D.C. Circuit court seeking to block states’ authority to do that.

Another case pending in two different circuit courts challenges the way the federal government calculates the real-life cost of climate change. If the attorneys general succeed in blocking the use of that metric, they could strip the federal government of its legal defense for almost any future climate policy.

That case has been filed by 10 attorneys general in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The same case has been filed by 13 attorneys general in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Minnesota.

“The A.G.s have a big advantage here, where they can forum-shop and choose the most favorable venues for their litigation,” Mr. Nolette said. “And they can break up into a multistate coalition, to do more arguments in front of more judges. That increases their odds for success.”

While no single case is aimed at overturning Chevron, a string of victories would essentially hollow it out.

Sally Katzen, co-director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic at New York University School of Law, said that a Supreme Court victory this month for the Republican attorneys general and their allies would just be a taste of what’s to come.

“The Federalist Society has put a lot of time and energy into this, and a lot of intellectual power,” said Ms. Katzen, former head of the White House office of regulatory affairs in the Clinton administration. “All that effort has paid off. But I don’t think this is the culmination of their agenda. I think it’s just the beginning.”

Kitty Bennett and Adam Liptak contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.html?searchResultPosition=1

Biden Administration to Cut Costs for Wind and Solar Energy Projects

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said the government would sharply reduce the fees it charges to companies that operate on public lands.

By Lisa Friedman, The New York Times, June 1, 2022

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration said on Wednesday it would cut in half the amount it charges companies to build wind and solar projects on federal lands, a move designed to encourage development of renewable energy.

“Clean energy projects on public lands have an important role to play in reducing our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and lowering costs for families,” Deb Haaland, the interior secretary, said in a statement.

Wind and solar developers have long said that lease rates and fees for projects on federal lands were too high to attract investors. The new policy would cut those costs by about 50 percent, administration officials said.

Representative Mike Levin, Democrat of California, who has sponsored legislation to expedite renewable energy development, applauded the move. “As Americans continue to face worsening effects of the climate crisis and rising energy bills, it’s paramount that we strengthen our clean energy independence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower energy costs,” he said in a statement.

Ms. Haaland made the announcement during a trip to Las Vegas, where she hosted a renewable energy round-table with business groups. The federal Bureau of Land Management also announced that it would strengthen its ability to handle a growing number of applications by wind, solar and geothermal developers by creating five new offices across the West to review proposed projects.

The decision comes as the Biden administration also seeks to raise the royalty fees it charges oil and gas companies to drill on federal land and in federal waters. Last month, the administration canceled three oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska, prompting Republican lawmakers to criticize the new renewable energy policies as harmful to energy producing states.

“Here is Biden‘s energy policy: wind, solar and wishful thinking,” Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, said on Wednesday on the Senate floor. “It’s just not realistic and, among other things, it is hurting our country. It is hurting my people in Louisiana desperately.”

President Biden has pledged to cut greenhouse gases generated by the United States roughly in half by 2030. Legislation to accomplish that is frozen on Capitol Hill.

As a result, the administration is focused on more limited executive actions that could spur clean energy and reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the burning of which produces the carbon dioxide and other gases that are dangerously heating the planet.

Last year, for example, the administration gave a green light to two major solar projects on federal lands in California that it said would generate about 1,000 megawatts, enough electricity to power about 132,000 homes.

In a report to Congress in April, the Interior Department said it was on track to approve 48 wind, solar and geothermal energy projects with the capacity to produce an estimated 31,827 megawatts of electricity, enough to power roughly 9.5 million homes, by the end of the fiscal 2025 budget cycle.

The reduction in fees and rental rates comes at a challenging time for the solar industry. A Commerce Department investigation into whether Chinese companies are circumventing U.S. tariffs by moving components for solar panels through four Southeast Asian countries has held up hundreds of new solar projects across the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/climate/biden-solar-wind-fees-cut.html?campaign_id=54&emc=edit_clim_20220603&instance_id=63084&nl=climate-forward&regi_id=66704053&segment_id=94109&te=1&user_id=97eb24ff9121d1a70f01fac05f86ea1b

Ford may have just changed our electric-vehicle future

Column by David Von Drehle, The Washington Post, May 17, 2022

Progress happens slowly, then suddenly. You see a guy on the street ostentatiously conducting a telephone call with a cellular phone the size of a brick pressed to his ear. Not much later, phones are palm-size and everywhere. Then your phone is a computer and camera and stereo and atlas and game console — so on and so forth rolled into one — and you cannot imagine life without it.

Thus it is with electric vehicles. In 1997, the first commercially successful hybrid, the Toyota Prius, entered the market in Japan. It solved the pesky problem of battery life by adding a small gasoline booster engine and an ingenious self-charging system that harnessed the energy of braking the car.

Engineers Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning conceived of an all-electric luxury sedan and persuaded a team of investors led by Elon Musk to bankroll a start-up they called Tesla Motors in 2003. With the help of generous federal subsidies, their sleek machines became a status symbol in the United States and China.

But the breakthrough moment — the event that turns gradual change into a seismic shift — might only now be at hand. Ford Motor Co., one of the oldest names in the transportation business, is coming out with an all-electric pickup truck. After nibbling at the edges of America’s car culture, the electric revolution is going after the main course.

Catherine Rampell: Why Ford’s F-150 Lightning could elevate green energy from the culture wars

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of Ford’s F-series trucks, most notably the F-150. Despite a hiccup in manufacturing last year caused by a pandemic-related shortage in microchips, the trucks finished 2021 as the best-selling vehicles in the United States for the 45th year in a row. It’s a streak that’s older than “Star Wars.”

The nation’s passion for pickup trucks doesn’t stop there. The second-best seller in 2021 was the Ram pickup, and third-best was the Chevy Silverado. Americans need pickup trucks for work, they want pickup trucks for play, and they love pickup trucks enough to define themselves based on their preferred brand. On the flat, straight highways of middle America, you’ll often see a Chevy go by with a sticker in the window portraying a cartoon scamp tinkling on a Ford logo — or vice versa. Talk about brand loyalty.

Ford has been working its way toward this moment for years. Indeed, the company can make a reasonable case for itself as the inventor — certainly the popularizer — of the pickup. Company founder Henry Ford’s world-changing Model T, introduced in 1908 and beloved for nearly two decades, was offered in a number of configurations, including one with the back seat removed from the chassis and replaced with a box for hauling stuff. The purpose-built Ford pickup arrived in 1917, and the F-series made its debut in 1948. The superstar F-150 hit the market in 1975 and sprinted to the head of the pack in sales.

As a first step toward an electric truck, Ford switched from steel to aluminum for the bodies of the F-series in 2015, shaving hundreds of pounds from the vehicles’ weight — but opening the company to derision from competitors. One rival filmed a TV ad in which an F-150 was showered with heavy blocks; not surprisingly, the truck suffered some dings. Yet F-series sales were undamaged. Last year, Ford pickup sales outpaced those of No. 2 Ram by more than 25 percent.

Megan McArdle: I used to be an electric car skeptic. I’ve changed my mind — but I still didn’t buy one.

Can Ford do for powertrains what it did for truck bodies? Initial reviews of the electric pickup — the F-150 Lightning — are beyond positive. “You are about to read a rave review,” the Wall Street Journal’s influential auto writer Dan Neil warned his audience. “The Lightning represents an American manufacturing triumph, a brand resurrection, a win for working people, a vehicle segment stepping out of the darkness into the light.”

Neil detailed the truck’s huge towing capacity, expanded storage space and ability to function as a rolling power plant. “Finally,” he wrote, “an EV that isn’t a soft-handed, overpriced toy for white-collar commuters.” YouTube is filling rapidly with reports of the truck’s prowess, on-road and off-.

Ushering America’s most popular vehicles into the electric age makes credible the projection by Bloomberg New Energy Finance that more than half of new car and truck sales will be all-electric by 2040. It also promises to escalate the global competition for battery components and puts added pressure on U.S. researchers and manufacturers to create a robust and innovative American battery industry.

As a sign of progress toward a cleaner future, this is the equivalent of a brass band leading a parade. Borrowing the words of country music’s Kip Moore, there’s somethin’ ’bout a truck that speaks powerfully to the hearts of ordinary Americans. That force is about to make a sudden shift from gas-guzzling problem to hopeful solution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/17/ford-f150-electric-pickup-transforms-american-car-culture/