Background
Later this week the Department of the Treasury is expected to release guidance on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)'s EV tax credit under section 30D of the Internal Revenue Code. Highly consequential for the guidance and practical availability of the credit will be how Treasury interprets the term "foreign entity of concern." This is because Section 30D(d)(7) excludes from credit eligibility vehicles that are:
- placed in service after December 31, 2024, with respect to which any of the applicable critical minerals contained in the battery of such vehicle ...由外国实体提取、处理或回收或 2023年12月31日后投入使用..万博体育app手机登录were manufactured or assembled by a foreign entity of concern.
Meanwhile, last week, Treasury and the Commerce Department released proposed regulations (here and here, respectively) that interpret "foreign entity of concern" for purposes of various incentive programs under the CHIPS & Science Act (CHIPS Act). Because the IRA's definition of "foreign entity of concern" mirrors the CHIPS Act's definition of "foreign entity of concern" interpreted by Commerce, and because Treasury cross-referenced Commerce's interpretation of "foreign entity of concern" in Treasury's CHIPS Act guidance, it is reasonable to wonder whether Treasury will adopt the same interpretation of "foreign entity of concern" for purposes of the EV credit exclusion in section 30D(d)(7).
If it does, there could be a dramatic diminution of vehicles eligible for the EV credits. Under Treasury's proposed CHIPS Act regulations, a foreign entity of concern would include, inter alia, (i) any entity organized under the laws of China or having its principal place of business in China, and (ii) any entity organized outside of China 25% or more of whose voting interests are owned by the Chinese government (as in the case of foreign subsidiaries of Chinese state-owned entities (SOEs)). If that interpretation is used for purposes of section 30D, absent a nearly impossibly fast elimination of Chinese critical minerals and battery components from the EV supply chain, the number of vehicles eligible for the 30D EV credit will sharply decrease in 2024 and will be practically eliminated in 2025.
EV manufacturers and suppliers may wish to flag this concern to Treasury.
Discussion
The IRA defines "foreign entity of concern" by reference to Section 40207(a)(5) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Most relevant is clause (C) of that definition, by which a foreign entity of concern includes any foreign entity that is "owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government of a covered nation (as defined in section 2533c(d) of title 10)"—currently China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. The phrase has been subject to speculation as to what level or nature of ownership would constitute "own[ership] by, [or] control[] by" a foreign government, and, most notably, what it would mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction or direction" of a foreign government.
The proposed CHIPS Act regulations adopt a broad interpretation of this phrase. In 15 CFR 231.106(c), the proposed regulations repeat the statutory language that foreign entities of concern include any foreign entity that is "[o]wned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government of a foreign country that is a covered nation (as defined in 10 U.S.C.4872(d))." And, under 15 CFR 231.112, the proposed regulations interpret "[o]wned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of" as follows:
- A person is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of an entity where at least 25 percent of the person's outstanding voting interest is held directly or indirectly by that entity.
- A person is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government of a foreign country or of a foreign political party where:
- The person is a citizen, national, or resident of the foreign country located in the foreign country;
- The person is organized under the laws of or has its principal place of business in the foreign country!or
- At least 25 percent of the person's outstanding voting interest is held directly or indirectly by the government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.
The proposed regulations thus take the position that direct or indirect ownership of 25% or more of voting securities is sufficient to confer "own[ership]" or "control[]." More notably, the proposed regulations equate an entity being "organized under the laws of or [having] its principal place of business in [a covered nation]" to the entity being "subject to the jurisdiction… of a government of a covered nation" (emphasis added).
Narrower interpretations were available. For example, whether an entity is "controlled by" a government of a covered nation could have required a fact-based assessment as to that government's ability to determine, directly or indirectly, the management or important decisions of the entity. This would be similar to the analysis undertaken by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States or the definition of "control" under the Securities Act of 1933. A 25 percent ownership stake could create a presumption of "ownership" or "control" but not necessarily be dispositive. Likewise, the proposed regulations could have interpreted being "subject to the jurisdiction [of a government]" as being subject to some affirmative government influence—akin to being "owned by, controlled by, or subject to the… direction of" such government.
As proposed for the CHIPS Act, foreign entities of concern would include:
- all entities formed in China regardless of ownership, including wholly-owned subsidiaries of non-Chinese companies;
- all entities formed outside of China where 25% or more of the voting interests are held directly or indirectly by Chinese state-owned entities, including such entities formed as joint ventures between Chinese and non-Chinese companies where a non-Chinese partner has majority or plurality control of the venture!万博体育app手机登录和 所有中国境外实体均被认为在中国拥有“主营业地点”(未提供指南),而不论其所有者为何 。
这些规程似乎 exclude 出自“受关注外国实体”(15CFR231.106C)U.S定义or other non-Chinese subsidiaries of Chinese companies that are less than 25% owned, directly or indirectly, by the Chinese government (notwithstanding that the Chinese parent of such entities would themselves be considered foreign entities of concern). This reading is affirmed by the fact that Commerce could have clearly provided—but did not—that an entity would be deemed a foreign entity of concern by virtue of its voting securities being owned by another foreign entity of concern (as opposed to being owned by the government of a covered nation). We note, however, that other commentators have taken a different position on this point.
Applying the proposed CHIPS Act interpretation to the IRA could have a profound impact on the availability of the EV credits. If the interpretation is adopted by Treasury, a vehicle would be ineligible for the credit if even a small amount of the critical minerals in its battery is extracted, processed, or recycled in China or by an entity 25%-owned by Chinese SOEs (beginning in 2025), or if any of its components is manufactured or assembled in China or by an entity 25%-owned by Chinese SOEs (beginning in 2024). The current supply chain for both critical minerals and battery components is heavily dependent on such Chinese and Chinese state-owned companies.短期内将中国从电池组件供应链中除去实际上是不可能的,但将中国从临界矿产供应链中除去实际上是不可能的。
Indeed, there is a policy rationale for interpreting the term differently in the CHIPS Act and in the IRA. In the CHIPS Act, the section 48D credit uses the definition of "foreign entity of concern" to ensure that (1) tax credits for semiconductor manufacturing in the United States do not flow to unwanted foreign parties and (2) technologies or products that raise national security concerns are not transferred to unwanted foreign parties. In that context, a broad interpretation of "foreign entity of concern" generally does not threaten to undermine the effectiveness of the credit to achieve the core goals of the statute (such as promoting semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.). In contrast, for the section 30D credit in the IRA, an overly broad interpretation of "foreign entity of concern" could effectively eliminate the availability of the EV credits, which would slow the electrification of the U.S.机动车辆并破坏IRA气候目标。
这些反向关注证明Finance认真考虑是否在不同上下文应用相同解释或是否采用替代解释以更好地证明它解释的法规的政策目的正确性。
As the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties ("COP") in Glasgow has drawn to a close, with seemingly mixed messages and a somewhat ambiguous conclusion, it is worth reflecting on the overall trajectory of the climate issue, societal expectations, and the accomplishments that — with time — Glasgow is likely to represent. COP26 highlighted the fragility of the planet, as well as the fragility of the global consensus-based United Nations approach to protecting it. It highlighted the sweep of global climate-induced challenges and the scale of transformation needed to address them. With rising temperatures has come a rising global focus on climate and a far greater set of emerging societal expectations for meaningful responses by government and the private sector. Despite the risk that the global agreement forged in Glasgow is seen by climate activists as all talk and no action — what they referred to as "blah, blah, blah" — I believe that a number of features will endure as important accomplishments.
Representatives from 197 nations, businesses, hundreds of civil society organizations, scientists, educators, media, and climate activists — you name it — all converged on Glasgow to shine a global spotlight on the climate crisis. The Conference had some 40,000 registered participants. With just a few thousand of those involved in the negotiations themselves, the rest converged around elevating climate understanding, climate solutions, and climate action. And still tens of thousands of others converged to protest and lend their voices to the climate debate.期望因Covid-19延迟一年以及美国返回巴黎气候进程而提高但这些期望都集中在依赖实现每一项结果一致性的联合国谈判进程上 。
尽管Covid云下集合和大批与会者所构成挑战,但缔约方会议在某些方面组织得比以往更好。它不再完全是一个国际谈判,而更多地是一个通信机制,以凝聚世界对雄心气候行动需求的看法United Nations进程启动全球领导人峰会,有120位国家元首参加It featured inspiring statements from governmental and societal leaders, such as Sir David Attenborough. The Summit then flowed into the overall COP, which had a thematic organization for each day of the conference, by which it highlighted actions or the sweep and scale of climate impacts in a more coherent fashion than ever before — spanning from energy, finance, transport, cities and the built environment, science and innovation, nature, gender, youth, and adaptation to and loss and damage from climate change. And the overall gathering encapsulated a heightened global focus on climate as a defining generational issue in a way that has never happened before.
The World Rallied Around the Urgency Shown By the Evolving Climate Science
The defining element of the Glasgow considerations was the acceptance of a far sharper sense of climate science findings around the scale and urgency of emissions reductions needed to stabilize the earth's climate and prevent catastrophic consequences. Every aspect of the discussions was judged by the context the new climate science shows.
Leading up to the COP, the UN's authoritative science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"), had issued two reports — one in 2018 focused on the imperative of holding global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade, and one in the Summer of 2021 highlighting the "overwhelming" evidence of climate change. The reports showed that a rise in global temperature to 2 degrees would lead to catastrophic results in both the frequency and severity of climate-induced events and global changes. The reports found the science of human-induced impacts "unequivocal" and noted that global temperatures had already risen by 1.1 degrees over pre-industrial levels — demonstrating how limited the remaining carbon budget is — and that climate adverse effects were widespread, rapid, and intensifying.The report further found that urgent action is needed to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in order to maintain a sustainable trajectory.
The IPCC findings were characterized by UN Secretary General António Guterres as a "code red for humanity." They became the touchstone for judging the adequacy of country pledges and private sector net zero commitments. In addition to the scale of the emissions reductions, the need for an accelerated pace of change also became far clearer and a widely accepted expectation. The notion that we are now in a "decisive decade" to get on the right emissions trajectory was embraced by the COP process. Going into the COP, various assessments, such as from the International Energy Agency, showed that existing country emissions reduction commitments would lead to a global temperature rise of 2.8 degrees by the end of the century. Those pledges covered less than 20 per cent of the gap in emissions reductions needed to be closed by 2030 to keep a 1.5 degree path within reach. According to a number of projections, the plethora of new commitments announced at the COP would, if delivered in full, lower the rise to somewhere between 1.8 and 1.9 degrees. The UN noted that the actual nationally determined contributions ("NDCs") submitted by participating nations would result in an unsustainable global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees.
At the end of the day, the overall agreement reached by 197 countries — including new emissions reductions announcements, the move to more regular revision of national commitments, transparency requirements around that process, and the development of rules for the global carbon markets — at bottom kept alive the possibility of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century and essentially transformed that temperature target into the new object of the UN process.虽然1.8度和1.5度之间的差值似乎不大,但实际上它代表着减轻气候变化最大破坏性影响的实质性差值。 广泛报道的争议涉及是否逐步停用煤炭和化石燃料补贴,发展中国家是否有足够的气候资金,以及是否向受影响国家提供补偿“损耗和损害”抑制了对协议的热度。 尽管如此,正如缔约方会议主席Alok Sharma得出的结论, “我们现在可以可信地说我们已经保住1.5度。But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action."
Paired with these science targets was a far more prominent voice given to the moral underpinnings to the proceedings that focused on the inequity created because the most vulnerable nations to climate impacts are those who have contributed least to the emissions causing such impacts, and a palpable sense of obligation to future generations. The IPCC report drove home the concept that the COP process is not some future exercise with distant impacts, but that the delegates were poised to address an urgent crisis of the here and now.
The Paris Climate Framework Survived the Absence, and Accommodated the Return, of the United States as an Active Participant
The nations of the world remained committed to the UN Climate Framework Convention's goal of "the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" even in the absence of U.S.巴黎气候协议自下而上承诺框架由每个国家根据自身环境确定,体现了应对这一全球挑战的共同全球承诺,没有美国则保持稳定和适切性participation, and the reaffirmation of that framework may be one of Glasgow's greatest accomplishments.
The Paris balance had achieved a "bottom-up" system of emissions reduction commitments that flexibly accommodates the circumstances of individual countries, yet one that does not allow so much flexibility that there is no realistic hope of actually bettering the climate situation by addressing emissions mitigation, adaptation to the already locked-in effects of climate change, and assistance for climate-impacted developing nations. Paris provided a solution and a directional sense of its goals, even as it admitted that its trajectory may need to grow more stringent over time, informed by meaningful science. Glasgow refined that process with a commitment by the parties to revisit their NDCs in one year rather than five and with enhanced transparency around individual country goals and their implementation. This process preserves the possibility that the collective emissions reduction actions are calibrated to avoid the worst climatic impacts.
The durability of the Paris structure was aided, to be sure, by the promise of new technology, which could allow for countries to enhance their emission reduction commitments through cost effective wind, solar, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle technologies — technologies that were still only on the verge in Paris — making a clean energy transformation that is consistent with the Paris climate goals today seem like an attainable objective.
When the United States did return to the negotiating table, it brought with it an ambitious NDC — pledging to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution by 2030, to achieve 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035, and net zero emissions no later than 2050. It also brought a bevy of other actions to instill more confidence in its commitment.This included leadership in assembling a global methane reduction coalition by which more than 100 countries agreed to cut emissions to tackle this highly potent short-acting greenhouse gas by 2030, a "first movers" technology coalition, as well as a series of whole-of-government financial and regulatory initiatives.
While the Biden Administration would have liked to have had its actions backed up by climate legislation, particularly power plant incentives and a range of clean energy tax credits in the reconciliation bill, it made a strong case nonetheless about the comprehensive approach it is taking to prioritizing climate outcomes across the government, whether that be in the financial sector, energy, or transportation. And the United States demonstrated ambition in its diplomacy, reaching a surprise commitment with China to work collaboratively across a range of areas to keep alive the prospects for achieving 1.5 degrees. President Biden's address to the COP was complemented by a widely praised speech by former President Obama speaking directly to youth climate activists who had taken to the streets during the COP, as well as by Congressional leadership.
The Global Focus on the Climate Crisis Puts a New Spotlight on the Importance of Business Solutions and the Business Opportunities Around Climate — Subject to Ever Greater and More Intensive Scrutiny
The first week of the COP brought a breathtaking series of collaborative public and private sector announcements to achieve carbon emissions reductions. In many ways, these commitments seem almost as significant in accomplishing a clean energy transformation as the text of the UN agreement itself.
In addition to the methane pledge, leaders from over 120 countries, representing about 90 percent of the world's forests, pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Hundreds of financial firms, operating through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), committed over $130 trillion of private capital — representing 40 percent of global financial assets — to transforming the economy for net zero.Various combinations of development organizations and private sector capabilities identified a range of opportunities they will pursue for investments in particular developing nation economies, such as in efforts to stem coal use in South Africa. Nearly 30 national governments, joined by cities, states, major automotive manufacturers, fleet owners, and investors, signed the Glasgow Declaration on Zero-Emission Cars and Vans to end the sale of internal combustion engines by 2035 in leading markets, and by 2040 worldwide. Other transportation commitments touched on heavy duty vehicle electrification, green shipping, and enhancing the deployment of sustainable aviation fuels.
Glasgow in many ways represents a shift in focus from a governmental initiative to a recognition that the scale and pace of the energy and societal transformation and response demanded by climate change necessarily will require swift and credible action by the private sector as well. As one Chief Executive Officer put it, the concept of a "climate-advantaged" company has taken hold, where sustainability has been transformed from a "nice to have" effort being done on the side, to a vital consideration at the center of business strategy, and where such companies can benefit from a substantial value premium. As one of the UN's High Level Climate Champions put it: "Net zero has gone from extreme to mainstream."
Of course, with the proliferation of net zero pledges comes an increasing level of skepticism about the credibility of those commitments and the ability to deliver on them in the long run. In the ramp up to the COP, the IPCC focus on the more stringent and nearer term emissions reductions meant that the Science Based Targets Initiative formally revised its goals for net zero corporate commitments to align with the new 1.5 degree IPCC target and issued a new standard for evaluating company emission reduction offerings. Along these same lines, the so-called "Under 2 Coalition," representing commitments by some 60 percent of world's economy, is recasting itself as the "Net Zero Coalition."
Likewise, the UN Secretary General, at the Opening to the World Leaders Summit portion of the COP and prompted by developing nation and activist concerns over the credibility of emissions reduction commitments, characterized "a deficit of credibility and a surplus of confusion over emissions reductions and net zero targets, with different meanings and different metrics." The Secretary General therefore announced that he will "establish a Group of Experts to propose clear standards to measure and analyze net zero commitments from non-state actors." The Secretary General reiterated his intent to establish a high level group for this purpose at the conclusion of the COP as well. These will likely complement a range of emerging national financial sector and ESG transparency requirements, including the announcement of the formation of a new International Sustainability Standards Board, along with other Paris Climate Agreement provisions, particularly the new carbon market rules.
Indeed, youth activists expressed particular concern over the pace and credibility of emissions reduction commitments, stating quite simply that "we don't believe you" and urging the business community to "prove them wrong." This skepticism was heightened by the overall context of the final COP debate around the failure to honor in a timely way climate finance commitments of $100 billion per year to affected developing countries, the absence of a clear loss and damage compensation commitment, and the somewhat relaxed treatment of fossil fuels, particularly the insistence by some nations to preserve an ongoing role for coal.
Just as there will be these formal processes to help refine net zero expectations, there no doubt also will be enhanced activist group scrutiny of company pledges and climate impacts. Companies will be called to task to demonstrate what they are doing to implement their net zero commitments.This scrutiny is likely to be even more acute given the inability of the formal negotiating process to achieve a level of ambition through country NDCs that will reach the 1.5 degree target or deliver in the short term the climate finance commitments for the developing world and the credibility gap that this outcome may perpetuate. As France's former Climate Ambassador and the key architect of the Paris Climate Agreement, Laurence Tubiana, put it, "Greenwashing is the new climate denial." Climate accountability in many ways will be the new currency.
We Can Expect More Focus on Climate Commitments Going Forward
Building on the Paris accord, the agreement follows the pattern of existing domestic environmental laws in recognizing that it may not be a perfect solution, in and of itself, and that the science will continue to evolve.But those frameworks recognize that it is critical to get started on the emissions reduction process even if the target may be revised in the future. Similar to the Clean Air Act's five year review provision for fundamental health-based pollutants, Glasgow acknowledges the need to calibrate future emissions reductions based on new science more frequently and with greater transparency to assess the success of country measures in meeting the emissions targets, and that there is a fierce urgency of the now being expressed by climate advocates that should inform those evaluations. While the global community has demonstrated that it can, in essence, walk and chew gum at the same time, the question this time is whether it can do so while running.That will be tested starting next year with submissions to the next COP.
Implementation of the various COP26 pledges will be a critical piece of the equation. The test will continue to be how to turn commitments into action for this decade. As the UN Secretary General indicated, "COP27 begins today." In some ways, Glasgow represents a sharper focus on science-aligned plans — by governments and business and in the face of a new global climate consciousness — to maintain climate stability, and the focus will now shift to the implementation and refinement of those commitments. For companies, growing global climate consciousness and risks and opportunities posed by the energy transformation present a new post-Glasgow dynamic necessitating climate engagement, but requiring a credible approach in doing so.
- An increased $115 billion investment to modernize the bridges, highways, and roads that are in the most critical need of repair, and $20 billion to improve road safety and reduce crashes and fatalities.
- An $85 billion investment into public transit to repair, modernize, and expand public transit to service more communities and meet rider demand.
- An $80 billion investment to address Amtrak's repair backlog, modernize the high traffic Northeast Corridor, improve existing corridors, connect new city pairs, and fund other programs to improve railway safety and modernization.
- A $25 billion investment in airports and an additional $17 billion investment in inland waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entries, and ferries in order to position the United States as a world leader in clean and efficient freight and aviation.
- A $20 billion provision for a new program that aims to reconnect neighborhoods that were divided by earlier infrastructure investments and projects, and to ensure that new projects provide for more equitable access and opportunities for disadvantaged communities.
Increased investments into repairing and modernizing our aging infrastructure are badly needed.美国土木工程师学会s/informstructioncard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2021-IRC-dept-Summary.pdf'这就意味着,据ASCE称,美国核心基础设施的许多方面严重需要关注并接近可用寿命结束当前支出水平不足以解决这些缺陷s/www.brookings.edu/research/how-Federal-information-Investment-can-put-america-towork/ASCE估计10年投资差值(即当前基础设施开销与提高B级基础设施需求之差)为2.59万亿美元。
ASCE估计基础设施持续投资不足可能导致GDP损失10万亿美元,到2039年损失300万个工作白宫对AJP的概况介绍表示U.S.交通拥塞延时,每年经济损失超过1600亿美元,即每位电工损失1 000美元浪费时间和燃料不足为奇,The give-and take suggests an appetite from both sides of the aisle to substantially invest in America's core infrastructure, even though most Republicans object to many of the other spending proposals in the AJP as having no place in an infrastructure spending package.
Despite this, the Biden Administration's negotiations with the group of Senate Republicans recently broke down over the scope of the infrastructure plan, the total investment and amount of "new spending" for the plan, and how the plan would be funded.AJP建议提高公司税提高收入,a双党集团十大温和参议员
各种研究表明,全面缺乏收费基础设施会阻碍电动车辆的广泛使用通向交通电气化的道路正正式建设中 数大州投资 5月底时 加利福尼亚公共事业委员会批准了超过7.6亿美元的交通电气化项目CPUCss.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M215/K3803804.24.PDF目标='blank'reFD还批准回扣San DigoGas & Elective客房客户在家中安装多达60 000 240伏充电站并授权PG&E建设234DC快速收费站 。
除委员会行动表示的总开支和由此产生的排减量外,拟议决策还值得注意它所推进的政策优先级 。例如,它明确地优先为加利福尼亚弱势社区创建电气化相关福利 。 (授权立法SB350发现,“扩展交通电气化需要增加弱势社区访问量 。..并增加使用这些社区..to enhance air quality, lower greenhouse gases emissions, and promote overall benefits to those communities" § 740.12(a)(1)(C) (De Leon)). Accordingly, the CPUC focused on promoting construction of charging infrastructure in DACs. For example, the PG&E fast charging program will target construction in DACs by providing up to $25,000 per DC fast charger in rebates to cover a portion of the charger cost for sites located in DACs.
The CPUC also prioritizes the survival of non-utility charging competition. For example, the Proposed Decision eliminates utility ownership of the charging infrastructure on the customer side of the meter in the SDG&E residential charging program.此外,PG&E和SCE中重程序公共事业将拥有准备基础设施,但不拥有电车供应设备公共事业局则允许客户选择自己的EVSE模型、EVSE安装商和网络服务提供商。
CPUC注意到允许公共事业局拥有电气化基础设施直到EVSE stub点的若干好处。首先,委员会发现,“收费基础局的实用所有权比替代所有制模型大增成本。” 相反,限制公共事业局控股设备允许以相同(或较低)收费支付者成本建设更多收费基础局第二,它允许私人方竞争和创新,这将提高收费技术并降低成本非实用性竞赛解决了“分块成本”恐惧问题,因为私人方将承担新生收费技术的风险。
whileCalifornia做出最大承诺,其他国家也加入努力为广泛采EVs铺路。
新泽西州公共事业公司PSE&G最近建议花费3亿美元建立5万个收费站网络新泽西收费基础设施大规模升级,据U.S.表示目前由不足600个收费站组成能源局数据evor.ny.gov/news/govor-cuomo-an新建资金将用于建设快速充电器并支助EV模型社区EvolveNY是范围更广的收费NY2.0倡议的一部分,该倡议通过增加全州收费站数提高电车接用率新建资金将帮助纽约实现到2025年80万电车这一特别雄心勃勃的目标。Late去年,马萨诸塞公共事业部 On the federal level, energy-related projects could be eligible for the $20 billion "Transformative Projects Program" announced by the Trump administration in February. However, President Trump recently remarked that his infrastructure plan will likely have to wait until after this year's midterm elections. In the meantime, states have shown that they are more than willing to take the lead in investing in transportation electrification infrastructure. (In related news this week, Colorado's decision to move toward adopting California's greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles represents a parallel and noteworthy development, further indicating leadership and action from states focused on developing advanced vehicle technology.) It's also notable that in addition to utility commission activity, states are also expressing support for advanced vehicle technology While the states have certainly taken a lead, their investments also complement significant action in the private sector, including the recent effort to stand up the Transportation Electrification Accord. See our recent post on that subject, and continue to follow Inside Energy and Environment for continued updates on this subject.
On June 19th, a group of diverse businesses from a variety of industries announced the formation of the Transportation Electrification Accord ("Accord"). This announcement signaled an increasingly firm consensus around the importance of open, resilient, and cooperative approaches to transportation electrification — and major companies and organizations, some of whom have not previously been active in this realm (such as the Edison Electric Institute, Southern Company, AEP, GM, and Honda) have come together around this effort.
The Accord's announcement comes at a time of intense dynamism in this industry.
On May 31st, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized more than $760 million worth of transportation electrification projects by the State's three investor-owned utilities. This Commission action illuminates the arc of an inflection point along the history of transportation technology: regulated utilities can expect to earn a rate of return as providers not just of power, but now, of fuel.hrefs/www.inside Energyand Envice.com018/06/state-Investments- in-电载-Charding-inforporation/a hrefs/www.wired.com/story/ford电车-plan-mach-suv/hrefss/electrication-plan-lective/tjects=ss/blank/nopener估计这就是主要环境集团、公用事业公司、汽车公司和其他各方签署协议的动机。
协议签署方将致力于通过开发合作方法提高“公平、繁荣和电气化运输未来 ”,该方法将利用参与者在值流上的专门知识和经验。它力求提供内部问责并构建协调框架-从OEMs到电费提供商-跨行业-我们将保持协议标签本博客上,因为我们继续监听电动汽车空间的发展