On the Issues: Electric Vehicle Charging Costs, Repeals to Clean Energy Tax Credits, and More

Twice a month, we’re compiling the most relevant news stories from diverse sources online, connecting the latest environmental and energy economics research to global current events, real-time public discourse, and policy decisions. Keep reading, and feel free to send us your feedback.

Here are some questions we’re asking and addressing with our research chops this week:

How do electric vehicle charging costs—including differences between at-home and public charging—affect the overall cost of ownership?

The budget reconciliation bill includes proposed annual registration fees on electric vehicles (EVs)—$250 for new EVs and $100 for hybrids—aimed at offsetting losses in revenue from gasoline taxes. The fee adds to the expenses incurred by EV owners, as the bill also includes a provision to phase out consumer tax credits for EVs. As lawmakers debate these policies, Resources for the Future (RFF) researchers consider another key component of the cost of owning an EV—how the costs of public and private EV charging vary, and how charging costs compare to the costs of refueling gasoline-powered vehicles. In an article from the latest issue of Resources magazine, RFF Fellow Beia Spiller and coauthors Trenton Marable and Benjamin Leard collected and analyzed data on these pricing differences. “Home charging is the most financially viable option in terms of reducing the costs associated with EV operation,” the researchers conclude. “With public EV charging … the cost is much higher and can exceed the costs associated with operating and refueling gasoline vehicles.”

How would consumers and the energy sector feel the effects of a potential repeal of clean electricity tax credits?

Senators are debating the future of clean energy tax credits as they deliberate on the budget reconciliation bill. The bill proposes a phaseout or wholesale repeal of these tax credits, which were designed to incentivize investment in and development of clean energy projects, by the end of 2025. Critics of these broad repeals cite concerns that the loss of these incentives would increase emissions, constrain efforts to meet rising energy demand, and undermine economic gains in US states that already have increased their investment in clean energy projects. In a new In Focus video, RFF Senior Research Associate McKenna Peplinski explains what the repeal of two clean electricity tax credits in question could mean for the energy sector and consumers. “If these two tax credits are repealed, it’s likely that we will see higher emissions for the power sector … and negative consequences for the clean energy sector, as well as for consumers,” says Peplinski.

Do people change their activities around the house when they’re made aware of indoor air pollution in their homes?

Wildfires have been burning in Canada since last week, sending smoke southeast into the United States and worsening air quality from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast. This prevalence of wildfire smoke significantly increases people’s exposure to fine particulate matter—known as PM2.5—which poses health risks. But exposure to PM2.5 is not limited to outdoor air pollution. Common household activities, such as cooking, release PM2.5 into the home. Robert D. Metcalfe, a professor at Columbia University, investigated the levels of indoor air pollution in homes and the behavioral changes people make when they are made aware of fluctuating levels. He joined Resources Radio last week to share his findings, along with insights about how this type of research can inform effective public health policy responses. “When we reveal that information to the households … we find that the indoor PM2.5 levels fell by just under two micrograms per cubic meter … a big change,” says Metcalfe.

Expert Perspectives

Global Temperature Projections Renew Focus on Emissions-Reduction Targets

A new report from the World Meteorological Organization projects that between 2025 and 2029, global temperatures will increase by 1.2°C–1.9°C above pre-industrial levels. The report also forecasts an 80 percent chance that one of those years will be the hottest on record. These projections bring the world close to surpassing limits set by the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature rise below 2°C—and, more recently, below 1.5°C—to avoid severe impacts of climate change.

In a 2023 issue brief, RFF researchers Jordan Wingenroth, Brian C. Prest, and Kevin Rennert assessed the global economic benefits of limiting temperature increases to the Paris Agreement targets. “We find that mitigation efforts that reduce expected warming to well below 2°C would generate cumulative economic benefits of $467 trillion through 2300,” Wingenroth says. “Relative to the path the world is currently expected to take, that dollar figure amounts to about half of the climate damages from the sectors covered in our model, which demonstrates the substantial value of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.”

Resources Roundup

Upcoming Event: Analyzing Policy Action in 2025

This spring, RFF launched its If/Then series, an initiative that shares timely insights from researchers on developments in energy and environmental policy in a rapidly changing legislative landscape. In an upcoming webinar on June 24, RFF scholars Alan Krupnick, Kevin Rennert, and Carlos Martín will be joined by NOTUS reporter Anna Kramer to discuss notable policy actions so far in 2025 and some key issues to watch. Register for the webinar.

Recent Event: Conversations on Electricity Affordability

Electricity affordability is a problem in the United States, as growing electricity demand puts pressure on aging infrastructure. Earlier this week, RFF and Canary Media hosted a panel of journalists, industry experts, and researchers who discussed possible solutions to this problem. “These are the types of conversations we are compelled to have in our current context—conversations about how the energy transition affects all of us in our day-to-day lives,” said Carlos Martín at the event. “Like our colleagues at Canary Media, we work to advance the clean energy transition and find solutions to the climate crisis. And, like Canary Media, we do our best to share information in accessible ways.”

Trade Policies Targeting Foreign Pollution Highlight Shared but Unequal Climate Responsibilities

Countries vary in how they regulate carbon emissions—some require that companies pay domestic fees for generating emissions, while imports from countries with weaker emissions standards often go untaxed. Some countries address this regulatory imbalance by placing fees on imports through policies known as carbon border adjustment mechanisms. But these fees tend to be borne disproportionately by developing countries that historically have contributed little to global emissions. In a new issue brief, RFF researchers Milan Elkerbout and Katarina Nehrkorn, with David Kleimann of ODI Global, examine these international climate-and-trade policies, considering how such policies can meet climate objectives while fairly distributing the responsibility of reducing global emissions.

India’s Urbanization Ambitions Are Shaping Its Plans for Decarbonization

India’s power sector has expanded rapidly over the past 25 years, fueled largely by coal. The timing of this development puts India on a unique path to meeting global emissions-reduction targets. Sandeep Pai, who researches and advises on energy transitions at nonprofit Swaniti Global, joined Resources Radio this week to discuss India’s efforts to expand energy access while moving toward a lower-carbon future. “India has a lot of aspirations to urbanize, grow, and industrialize … to at least reach the world average of per capita electricity consumption,” says Pai. “That means India’s electricity system has to triple as India tries to decarbonize.”

#ChartoftheWeek

Job postings for scientific research and development positions on Indeed have dropped by 18 percent since January 20, continuing a downward trend that began in 2022. The recent sharp decline coincides with the Trump administration prioritizing reductions in federal spending, particularly by cutting scientific research contracts—which likely dampens demand for research roles that rely on government funding.

Related People