
21 February 2024
Agents of Change: 2022-2023 Cohort
Read the ideas and solutions from our fourth cohort.
Read the ideas and solutions from our fourth cohort.
Over 100 organizations are asking Congress to keep the credit.
President Donald Trump has the opportunity to challenge the Biden administration’s hydrogen tax credit rules under the Congressional Review Act, but the clock is ticking.
The act only allows for changes within 60 days of the rules’ publication. On March 4, time will run out.
Last week representatives from 117 trade associations, energy companies, and hydrogen hub projects issued a letter to Congress and the Trump administration asking them to keep the federal hydrogen tax credit.
The tax credit was originally proposed in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and aims to incentivize clean production of hydrogen and allow hydrogen to compete with cheaper, traditional energy sources, like fossil fuels. The push for hydrogen was proposed as a decarbonization solution for difficult-to-electrify industries like steel making, construction, and heavy trucking.
As Trump halts renewable energy policies, proposes the development of a fossil fuel-friendly “energy dominance council,” and slashes federal funding across sectors, hydrogen stakeholders worry that the U.S. government’s commitment to hydrogen energy could be at risk.
“Representing the full diversity of the American hydrogen industry, we stand ready to work with you to implement President Trump’s bold energy dominance agenda,” the letter authors wrote.
The letter highlights why the signees believe that the hydrogen credit should be preserved, including its potential to drive economic development, increase “energy abundance,” and protect national security. The authors state that the American hydrogen industry “could generate 700,000 jobs by 2030” and “generate $140 billion in revenue.” Signees included groups like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and three of the nation’s seven federally-funded hydrogen hubs.
When the tax credit was originally proposed, it held bipartisan support and still does in many states. That broad support was evident during development of the nation’s seven federally-funded hydrogen hubs, but the hubs have now entered a state of uncertainty as Trump and Elon Musk, tech billionaire and leader of Trump’s special commission tasked with slashing federal spending, overhaul federal agencies. Funding for these projects is supposed to be doled out in four phases over the next 10-12 years from the Department of Energy.
The rules for the credit were finalized in January, near the end of the Biden administration, by the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service and received a mixed reception from industry groups and environmentalists. Industry groups had requested more pathways for natural gas use in hydrogen and less stringent requirements for clean hydrogen production, while environmentalists had asked for a stronger emphasis on using renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels in hydrogen production, and more stringent rules for emissions calculations.
The FBI is investigating contested accusations of fraud within the Biden administration's $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, questioning Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees about the program's oversight and fund allocation.
Spencer S. Hsu, Maxine Joselow, and Nicolás Rivero report for The Washington Post.
In short:
Key quote:
"It's certainly unusual for any case to involve two different U.S. attorney offices declining a case for lack of probable cause and to have the Department of Justice continue to shop it. You can’t seize a truck, you can’t seize a backpack, you can’t seize a pair of socks without probable cause."
— Stefan D. Cassella, former federal prosecutor and asset forfeiture expert
Why this matters:
The aggressive pursuit of this investigation, despite internal opposition and legal hurdles, raises concerns about overreach by the Trump administration and the impact on clean energy initiatives. Freezing funds without clear evidence could stall projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving public health, particularly in underserved communities.
Read more: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher
The Trump administration has initiated significant layoffs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service, sparking widespread concern among scientists and environmental advocates.
In short:
Key quote:
"Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives."
— Rep. Jared Huffman, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee
Why this matters:
NOAA's work underpins critical sectors such as agriculture, aviation, and maritime operations, all of which rely on accurate and timely weather data. As the nation grapples with the fallout from these unprecedented cuts, the scientific community and the public at large are left questioning the future of environmental monitoring and disaster preparedness in the United States. The full impact of these decisions remains to be seen.
President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency has fast-tracked oil and gas development by easing environmental regulations. Democrats are mounting legal challenges.
Michael Phillis and Jennifer McDermott report for The Associated Press.
In short:
Key quote:
“I think they are going to accomplish what no other administration has been able to do in terms of crippling the institutional capacity of the federal government to protect public health, to conserve national resources to save endangered species.”
— Pat Parenteau, professor emeritus, Vermont Law & Graduate School
Why this matters:
Trump’s policies could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions by expanding drilling and curbing renewable energy incentives. The rollback of environmental protections threatens ecosystems, making species at risk of extinction even more vulnerable. As funding is slashed, federal agencies are losing their ability to enforce safeguards.
Meanwhile, efforts to slow renewable energy projects may leave the U.S. more reliant on fossil fuels at a time when global demand for clean energy is rising, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage in the longer term. With 2024 recorded as the hottest year yet, the administration’s moves may further distance the U.S. from international climate goals.
The House voted 220-206 to overturn a Biden-era rule that enforces a fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas companies, a move that may advance in the Senate but will require additional legislation to fully dismantle the program.
In short:
Key quote:
“The methane polluter fee is a critical tool to reduce the waste of natural gas, limit pollution in local communities, and drive America forward as a global leader on methane.”
— Coalition of more than 70 environmental groups
Why this matters:
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat far more effectively than carbon dioxide. Oil and gas operations release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere through leaks and flaring, contributing to climate change and air pollution. The fee aims to curb emissions by incentivizing companies to prevent waste, but opponents argue it raises energy costs. With climate policies facing partisan battles, the future of this regulation remains uncertain.
Related: Methane emissions from warming ecosystems pose a major climate threat
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has cut staff in its Office of Polar Programs, raising concerns about the future of U.S. scientific research and strategic presence in Antarctica and the Arctic.
In short:
Key quote:
“I want to dispel this rumor that this is a bunch of people who are sitting around sucking off the government milk bottle. These are people that had well-established careers in academia, and they decided that they wanted to come to N.S.F. and give something back to the U.S. taxpayers.”
— Michael Jackson, former NSF Antarctic program director
Why this matters:
The Arctic and Antarctic are at the front lines of climate change, with melting ice affecting global sea levels and weather patterns. U.S. research in these regions has also been a pillar of its geopolitical strategy. With China and South Korea expanding their presence, a diminished American role could have scientific and diplomatic consequences for the country. These layoffs come as the Trump administration downplays climate science, potentially hampering future research on global warming and environmental changes.
Learn more: Scientific research faces political scrutiny under Trump-era orders
The European Commission has proposed loosening corporate sustainability reporting requirements, exempting most companies currently covered, in an effort to boost economic competitiveness.
In short:
Key quote:
“We cannot hope or expect to successfully compete in a perilous world with one hand tied behind our backs.”
— Valdis Dombrovskis, European commissioner for the economy
Why this matters:
The European Union has long positioned itself at the forefront of corporate climate accountability, pioneering regulations that require companies to disclose their environmental impact and take measurable steps toward sustainability. But recent shifts suggest a retreat from some of its more stringent oversight policies, signaling a recalibration of its approach amid mounting economic pressures.
Business groups argue that excessive regulation stifles growth, while environmental advocates warn that scaling back rules could weaken corporate transparency and climate action. The changes come as economic competition with the U.S. and China intensifies.
Related: Europe's push for a greener future amid rising protests
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
We must prioritize minority-serving institutions, BIPOC-led organizations and researchers to lead environmental justice efforts.
Responses to the new rules have been mixed, and environmental advocates worry that Trump could undermine them.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
The leadership team talks about what they’ve learned — and what lies ahead.
Top polluters are benefiting the most from tax breaks.