Entirely predictable, both that the new Administration would cancel it and the fact that not a single dollar was awarded.
I can’t see how anyone in Congress will defend CIFIA — too much in potential savings and too little (probably zero) prospect of any kind of usefulness, real world or political.
Perhaps misbegotten from the start, in retrospect — a fragile artefact of late stage ‘narrative neoliberalism’, camouflaged by the more substantial forms of TIFIA and WIFIA, that didn’t have a chance to survive the coming federal earthquake.
5/31/25 Update — From the 2026 WH Budget Technical Supplementary Appendix, page 306 — no surprises, the intent is clear, as it was in the Budget Summary a few weeks ago. But doesn’t this ‘cancelling’ require a legislative recission or repurposing?
5/22/25 Update — The proposed federal eminent domain for carbon pipelines provision was in fact deleted from the Big etc. bill that passed the House last night — Controversial pipeline provision removed as expected, group says
The article, however, notes disappointment that the entire carbon credit monetization pot was not removed, a more ideological point. But without pipelines to do this in scale, does carbon monetization become practically unimportant? I don’t know — there may be other means, and the money is very real. I still haven’t seen anything about CIFIA. If large-scale carbon pipelines are not likely to be built, what’s the point of this financing? Congress seems to be looking hard for loose couch change to mitigate the cost of the Big etc. bill — how could’ve they missed about $2bn through recission of CIFIA’s IRA appropriations? Maybe they did — or maybe something else more substantive is developing. I’ll keep looking — it’s a relevant story for two reasons: First, CIFIA is a type of ‘narrative neoliberal’ federal infrastructure finance that will be in opposition to the reformed versions I’d like to see, and (2) this is an early skirmish point in the bigger neoliberal vs. post-neoliberal battle — there may be hints of what’s to come.
5/20/25 Update — It appears CIFIA’s pending demise may have been greatly exaggerated. In the Big, etc. bill draft, I didn’t see any repeal of the 45Q credit, which drives the money angle of carbon pipelines, just some seemingly minor restrictions about transferability and foreign involvement. No recission of the $2bn or so CIFIA funding either.
But even more surprising, buried in page 264 of 1000+ page bill, in a section that amends federal licensing for, inter alia, carbon pipelines:
‘‘(d) EFFECT OF LICENSE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Commission issues a license under subsection (c)(1) of this section and the licensee is
in compliance with such license, no requirement of State or local law that requires approval of the location of the covered pipeline with respect to which the license is issued may be enforced against the licensee.
Okay, some sort of federal eminent domain that actually makes pipelines feasible and thereby makes the still-generously funded CIFIA program useful? But then there’s this: Anti-pipeline activists cheer expected removal of federal permit preemption from reconciliation bill, in which:
The federal pipeline preemption provision will be removed in the House Rules Committee on Wednesday morning, according to Kristen Blakely, who works for U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-South Dakota.
Tomorrow? I guess we’ll see. It’s not possible to keep up with everything in the current upheaval. But I’ll try on this one — strikes me as something of an ideological battle between the narrative neoliberals (who obviously have very persistent and detail-oriented lobbyists) and the post-neoliberals.
Further observation on the narrative neoliberals: Their old narrative is dying while the neo-narrative is waiting to be formed. In the meantime, they resort to quiet craft and trickery to preserve what they can of the loot. Shouldn’t be under-estimated.