[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now, we turn to our Health and Climate Tuesdays section of the show, an ongoing feature here. In addition to the cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs, President Donald Trump's so called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or his big budget and policy bill to not just put it in his own marquee language, axes several Biden era clean energy incentives, and instead further subsidizes the oil and gas industry.

Leading up to the bill's passage, several research firms projected that the Republicans mega bill will raise greenhouse gas emissions, and likely set the country's climate goals further out of reach. Of course, they may be declaring the old climate goals counterproductive and irrelevant, but joining us now to break down some of what's in the over 1,000-page mega bill for how it will impact both green energy initiatives, and greenhouse gas emissions overall is Zach Colman, Climate and Energy Reporter for Politico. Zach, thanks for coming on again. Welcome back to WNYC.

Zach Colman: Happy to be here.

Brian Lehrer: I'll start with the specific, what's happening to clean energy initiatives under this bill? What will happen to wind and solar projects in particular?

Zach Colman: Well, look, the bill is basically sunsetting a bunch of incentives that make it cheaper to build wind and solar projects in the United States. Now, these are projects that have accounted for the bulk of new additions to the electric grid in the past year, past several years, in fact, so what it's going to do is, it's not going to stop wind and solar altogether, but it's going to slow down the addition of these power sources, and actually, raise the cost by removing these subsidies.

These technologies are pretty cost competitive with natural gas, and they're certainly more cost competitive than coal, but by removing the subsidies, it's just going to slow down the additions at a time which power demand is actually surging, and then we're going to have to run more fossil fuel power to make up the difference.

Brian Lehrer: From a consumer standpoint, what about the listeners out there who are on the fence about getting a solar panel put on their roof? What should they know?

Zach Colman: Well, those incentives are going to end in relatively short order. If you really want to get your solar panels on your roof, you should start making those calls today. In fact, to get the full credit for these subsidies, you really need to do this by the end of the year, so it's something that it is relatively within reach financially with a lot of the ways in which these residential solar installers finance the credits and finance these projects, but without those credits, which will go away by the end of the year, then it's going to be difficult for people to get those solar panels added to their roof.

Brian Lehrer: Does this also apply to heat pumps, a way to get away from fossil fuel energy in private homes?

Zach Colman: Yes. I mean, the energy efficiency tax credits are also going to be disappearing by year's end. These are things that they're relatively new technology for the home. These are heat pumps that are more efficient, that rely on electricity, rather than natural gas home heating, and there were a number of tax credits available to homeowners under the Inflation Reduction Act, that are now being unwound as a result of this law that was signed into law this past weekend.

Brian Lehrer: Another provision, the law ends federal tax incentives for electric vehicles designed to make them more affordable and help consumers transition away from, obviously, gasoline powered vehicles. Can you remind us again what those tax incentives were, and do you know specifically when they will go away? I'm sure we have potential electric car buyers listening right now who would like to know.

Zach Colman: Yes, those incentives will also be going away this year. That's a $7,500 consumer credit for buying new vehicles, and it's a few thousand dollars less for used electric vehicles, and there was actually some--[crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: That's a lot for people who didn't know, right?

Zach Colman: That's a lot, yes. [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: That's a lot on a new car at $7,500.

Zach Colman: That's about 20% of the cost for a lot of these electric vehicles, so that's a huge sticker price difference for anyone going into the market and buying these vehicles. One of the interesting things in the modeling that these research firms have done about the impacts of the bill, is they didn't model a huge decrease in emissions potential, because of the electric vehicles incentives going away, but that's because these modeling firms also showed that the Trump administration would potentially leave intact these emission standards for cars that are supposed to make cars more fuel efficient, but we already know that the Trump administration is trying to unwind those rules as well.

There had been this idea that the market would still put more electric vehicles onto the market, that the car makers would be incentivized through regulation to do this, but the Trump administration is also unwinding those regulations, so you might see less incentive for automakers to actually invest in electric vehicles when you don't have the regulatory push, and you don't have the consumer credit pull into the market for EVs.

Brian Lehrer: Plus, Trump doesn't like Elon Musk anymore, so maybe that'll hurt too. [chuckles] To be specific, just so people know, the date that I've seen is September 30th as the deadline to qualify for the federal tax credits on EV before they terminate it. You have that date?

Zach Colman: Yes. Yes, it is September 30th. A lot of these dates were a bit all over the place, because the negotiations went on for several weeks, and there was a reconciliation between the House version and the Senate version, so each credit seems to have its own sunset, and there were other technologies that got better treatment that will last through the 2030s. You look at hydrogen power, you look at nuclear power, geothermal power, there are some zero emission sources of electricity that get still some favorable tax treatment, but the ones that can help out today, wind, solar, EVs, those are the market-ready forms of clean technology. Those really took a beating in this law that got signed this past weekend.

Brian Lehrer: We have a wind and solar question from a caller. Let's take Alan in Midwood, Brooklyn. You're on WNYC. Hi, Alan.

Alan: Good morning. Thanks again, Brian, for your wonderful program and the speaker There have been a number of really prominent features, multi-page stories in The Times lately reminding us of how China is totally dominating solar, wind, auto, auto battery, and other green technologies, not just in the development and sale of them, but an implementation of them in their own infrastructure.

I don't see what Republican argument for helping American business allows that kind of shift of dominance in an industry that we began working on well before they industrialized this way back in the '70s. We basically spent 50 years giving them these ideas, and letting them control the world market. The only possible benefit to Trump constituents is to protect them from climate liability by totally repudiating all truth about climate science, and in the process hurting our government, our people, and our industries.

Brian Lehrer: Alan, thank you, so he's got a lot of opinion in there, which is fine, but what about his point that this law, what it does to wind and solar incentives, in particular, in this country, Zach, will just help China have global dominance in the solar and wind industries, which the world is still interested in?

Zach Colman: Right. I mean, they do already have. China already has a lead in wind and solar globally. What this does, according to a lot of people who study these markets, what this law does, is really hurt the US's ability to regain some of that market. I don't think that there was a real near term chance of overtaking China, but the Inflation Reduction Act had started to put incentives in place that brought a lot of solar manufacturing back to the US.

Now, there's a question of, is there going to be enough demand to install this technology in the US to really justify those investments for making solar panels, wind turbines, batteries that store power from both of those sources? That's the thing that is really in question here. It's not about, is the US going to overtake China? It's just how big of a China lead? Well, how big of a lead will China get?

Brian Lehrer: We are in our weekly Health and Climate Tuesdays section of the show today on the climate side, looking at the climate implications of the things in the 1,000-page plus mega bill, the big budget and policy bill from President Trump that passed Congress last week, looking at the climate implications, the specific climate-oriented provisions. We've been talking about subsidies and tax incentives that will go away for you as consumers, as well as some of the larger implications.

We'll get into the actual greenhouse gas emission model estimates, and more as we go here for another few minutes. If you want to call in for Zach Colman, Climate and Energy Reporter for Politico, as that previous caller did. 212-433-WNYC, or you can shoot us a text with a question or a thought, 212-433-9692.

Let's get to the emissions. You write, "President Joe Biden pledged to cut greenhouse gases 61% to 66% below 2005 levels by 2035, a target his administration says was needed to keep the world's climate from careening further off track," so where does this mega bill put the US in terms of meeting its current greenhouse reduction goals?

Zach Colman: Well, further off track, the bottom line here, I mean, so I consulted with four modeling firms. These are groups that basically plug in a bunch of numbers into these tax credit policies, and run it out towards 2035, and after they plugged in these numbers in the House and Senate versions, they found that in 2035, the absence of these incentives, the effect of this Republican bill would have raised emissions 8% to 12% compared to where they would have been in 2035 with the Inflation Reduction Act policies in place.

You're looking at a delta of 8% to 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, which US emissions would still fall, but they would fall way less fast than they need to get on top of the worst problems that climate change is going to bring, talking about hotter heat waves, and we're experiencing that right now. It's going to get hotter, more droughts, more floods, so this is a pretty significant difference.

That doesn't even account for the Trump administration's regulatory policies, where if you include those, removing Clean Air Act, regulate-- Clean Air Act, emissions regulations on greenhouse gas for power plants, on tailpipe standards for cars, you look at potentially a 27% gap between where Biden's policies would have taken the US in 2035, to where the Trump administration Republican policies are going to take us.

Brian Lehrer: I guess they argue, certainly, the Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who comes from the fracking business, would argue that assuming those numbers are accurate, it's just not going to matter that much to people, right? If the climate goals, if the emission reduction goals are scaled back that much.

Zach Colman: Yes, that is what they say. I think the one thing that people need to understand here is that the Trump administration just does not really care about climate policy. They don't care about climate change. When I reference Joe Biden's climate goals in the story that you just read from, the Trump administration doesn't care about those. They are not held to those 61% to 66% cuts by 2035 goals, and they're acting in accordance with not being held to those standards, because the policies that they're pursuing would raise emissions.

They just tend to think that it doesn't matter that much. I mean, I'm sitting in my air conditioned home, and I think that they're the opinion that Americans will weather climate change, but we're seeing that it has pretty insidious effects in the US in terms of higher heat waves, and lost labor productivity, and effects on health, and it's going to actually be worse for the world too.

Brian Lehrer: On the possible effects on the wind, and/or solar injury. We may have a caller who's helping us report that part of the story. Joelle in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hello, Joelle.

Joelle: Hi, how are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good, how are you?

Joelle: I'm okay. As I was telling your operator, we have solar panels in our home, and our company has just filed for chapter 11. Now, that did go through just before the Big Beautiful Bill passed, but it's pretty coincidental.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Would that be-- Again, I don't know if you know it on this granular level, Zach, but might that be an indication of the impact of Trump administration policies? Like, some solar panel providing companies are actually going to go out of business, and maybe others in that field?

Zach Colman: Well, to this specific company, I wouldn't know, but I think that there was definitely some baked in understanding that incentives were going to dry up, and there had been a holding pattern for the renewable energy industry writ large. There were a lot of projects that were held in pause, because people weren't clear as to what kind of policy support there would be, and how long it would exist.

There's hundreds of projects, projects that are supported by federal tax credits that are now hanging in the balance, and in general, financing was-- It was a little bit tough to get off the ground, because there was uncertainty about how long these incentives would last.

Brian Lehrer: On some of the politics of this. Axios is reporting this morning that Democrats are already eyeing this as a key issue for the 2026 midterms, but instead of climate, according to the story, they'll focus on how they think this bill will raise costs and, and cut jobs. They report, "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's early list of targeted districts overlaps heavily with 13 House Republicans who voted for the plan, but urged the Senate to soften it." We have a caller to this point, too, Priya in Milburn, New Jersey. You're on WNYC. Hi, Priya.

Priya: Yes. Hi, there, so-- Thanks for taking my call. I guess my question is this, like, is there any reporting on any Republican-- Asking Republicans, basically, just why would they do this? We understand what's happening with-- What's happening with the bill, and we get the nuts and bolts of it, but just on a totally logical level, even if you deny that climate change is real, and et cetera, why would they want to kill jobs, American jobs in businesses that work in renewable energy?

Is it really just because they're just trying to stick it to "woke liberals" or coastal elites? Is it really that base, I guess? For me, that's the big news story. It's not so much what's in the bill, and what's not in the bill, and this and that. Are Republicans really, really that mesmerized, or that cultish in their behavior? Perhaps, this is a rhetorical question.

Brian Lehrer: No, but it's a central question. [crosstalk] Yes. Are they just about owning the libs, even if it's against the interests of their constituents, in this case, Zach, in a lot of Republican districts that have clean energy jobs that might go away.

Zach Colman: There were a clutch of Republicans who tried to soften the language here in the Republican bill, but they're not the majority of the Republicans. There are Republicans in the Senate and House who acknowledge that these clean energy incentives have created jobs and new economies in their states and districts, but writ large, this is Donald Trump's party, and Donald Trump said he doesn't want green energy subsidies. He put it on Truth Social in the 11th hour negotiate [sound cut] senate [inaudible 00:18:21]

Brian Lehrer: Your line is breaking up, so let me jump in here. I think the answer to that question is clear, and Priya, thank you for that question. Call us again, but before you go, if the line holds up, I do want to ask about your reporting on the tragic flooding in Kerr County, Texas over the weekend. The New York Times reports the latest death toll as of just before we went on the air is 104 people.

Shortly after the disaster, Democratic Party lawmakers and some federal emergency workers blamed the Trump administration's cuts to the National Weather Service for the death toll. Those cuts took place before the passage of this bill, spearheaded more by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, but can you walk us very briefly through the current state of the agency, and is it clear at this time whether those cuts had an impact on preparedness in Kerr County? I think there are different versions of that out there.

Zach Colman: Right, so the agency has suffered enormous departures through early retirements, firings, and voluntary resignations, and many offices are short staffed. They're trying to plugged the gaps they've gotten. The National Weather Service has gotten an exemption from a department-wide hiring freeze to fill critical roles. It is not clear that those vacancies affected anything with this Texas flooding tragedy.

The reports and forecasts were timely. They were accurate. It was unfortunate that this flash flood hit at the worst time, 1:14 in the morning. Kerr County had not invested in an early warning system that would have actually taken that NWS report, and automatically blared sirens and sent text messages to get people out of harm's way in the middle of the night, but these early warning systems are expensive.

A lot of communities don't have them, and that is also a problem. The National Weather Service from what we can tell, operated about as well as you could imagine. What really is difficult though, is then translating this high level information into actionable results on the ground, and that is where there might be some room for improvement.

Brian Lehrer: You're right. The Trump administration has proposed cutting $2.2 billion from the weather services parent organization NOAA, the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its fiscal 2026 budget request. For listeners who aren't familiar, why are Republicans targeting NOAA, in particular, Weather Service, and the other things that they do?

Zach Colman: Well, there's a belief that NOAA is a-- Has gravitated towards being a climate agency, and NOAA does do a lot of climate research, but for Republicans, and this is written in Project 2025, which is-- It was written by many people who are now in the Trump administration. There is a belief that this data, climate data, can be used essentially to harm the Trump administration, or conservative administration's regulatory actions, because a lot of the administration is working to unleash more fossil fuels, which do cause climate change, so there was a, "Well, if you don't study it, and don't know it, then it can't inconvenience you," kind of mentality to these cuts, and that is what we're seeing.

The President proposed through his budget that he would gut much of the path-leading research that a lot of the world relies on by eliminating the Office of Atmospheric Research at NOAA, but again, this is a budget proposal. The Congress actually has to go along with it, and it's unclear whether they will.

Brian Lehrer: That, folks, is our Health and Climate Tuesday section of the show for this week. Zach Colman is the Climate and Energy Reporter for Politico. Thanks so much for getting into the weeds here, and digging into the climate oriented details of the big Trump budget and policy bill. Thanks.

Zach Colman: Thank you.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.