House approves bill to increase scrutiny of DOE program
The House approved legislation Monday that would require more regular reporting from a Department of Energy office critical to deploying emerging, clean energy technologies.
H.R. 1453, the 'Clean Energy Demonstration Transparency Act,' would require the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations to submit semiannual reports to Congress on the status of projects and grants. It passed by voice vote.
Republicans pitched the bill — sponsored by Reps. Mike Carey (R-Ohio) and Josh Riley (D-N.Y.) — as a way to further scrutinize climate law funding passed under the Biden administration.
Advertisement
'Requiring DOE to submit semi annual reports will provide Congress with crucial tools to protect taxpayer dollars, hold DOE accountable and ensure that projects are based on merit rather than crony favoritism,' said Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Tax credits with a scalpel — how to boost American energy without killing innovation
Just days after I was sworn into Congress in 2017, I found myself in the thick of negotiations over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Republicans passed the bill within a month, and I returned to Utah eager to tell small-business owners and manufacturers about the historic tax relief they could expect. As I shared the news, business leaders politely nodded, then said, 'Thanks. But if you really want to help us grow, cut the red tape and the uncertainty that goes with it.' Solving a problem is great. Solving the right problem is better. That lesson has stuck with me. As the U.S. Senate begins its swing at reconciliation, I am determined to apply this principle — solving the right problem in the right way. Leadership expert Margaret Wheatley cautioned, 'We experience problem-solving sessions as war zones, we view competing ideas as enemies, and we use problems as weapons to blame and defeat opposition forces. No wonder we can't come up with real lasting solutions!' Specifically, the Senate must solve the right problem relating to American energy. The right policy solution must navigate tax credits and regulatory reform in what I believe is central to America's economic future, the planet and our national security: energy. I am convinced the next great opportunity for economic growth — and energy dominance — won't come solely from government programs. For example, we likely wouldn't have had the fracking revolution without federal research at the Department of Energy. That said, we can't rely only on government intervention. When government acts, it must be fiscally responsible and targeted. This problem requires the government to support the private sector in its leadership, not the other way around. Some conservatives understandably want to end the energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and frankly, I agree with them on many provisions that included frivolous spending. We weren't included in its drafting and didn't vote for it. But we must be wise — we simply cannot afford to treat good policy ideas as guilty by political association. That would be a quest for political power over intelligence and strategy. The simple truth is this: many of these credits are Republican policies that we fought to protect. They support strategic energy assets and a robust domestic economy. That's why businesses from across the energy spectrum — oil and gas, nuclear, renewables — have already made billions in long-term investments based on these policies. We must build a thoughtful, principled bill that doesn't pull the rug out from under American innovators. Doing otherwise risks freezing investment, delaying domestic production, increasing costs, and forfeiting our energy edge and national security to China and Russia. We can — and must — evaluate each tax credit on its merits. Some deserve to be wound down. Others should stay, at least for now, if they advance American energy independence and national security. In reconciliation, we should fight for a thoughtful approach or, in the words of Speaker Johnson, 'use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer.' Over the years, I've spoken with energy innovators across Utah and the nation. From the Uintah Basin to Beaver's geothermal fields, I've seen cutting-edge facilities building the future of power. Their consistent ask isn't subsidies — it's predictability and deregulation. Many of them compete with foreign producers who pollute more and comply less. Russian natural gas is 40% dirtier than American-produced gas. When we saddle our own production with a regulatory millstone and unnecessary uncertainty, we don't help the climate. Nor are we being careful stewards of the environment. By default, we outsource emissions, undermine our economy and provide resources to our enemies. Deregulation doesn't mean eliminating guardrails. It means designing rules that are transparent, consistent and don't take five years and three lawsuits to get a permit. During the oil embargo of the 1970s, Americans learned a hard truth: we must never depend on adversaries for our energy. Gas lines and rationing are the result of bad policy or simply not solving the right problem. That lesson shaped a generation. Decades later, we watched as European leaders scrambled when Russia invaded Ukraine — only to discover that they were energy-dependent on their enemy. The U.S. must never be in that position. In fact, we should aim higher. We shouldn't just be energy independent — we should be energy dominant. President Trump understands this. His energy agenda is not about ideology — it's about prosperity, security and leverage. The Senate must now amend the House legislation that supports that agenda in both word and substance. To meet President Trump's goals, we must bring every energy source to the table as part of the solution. If we prematurely cut any one of them off — or do so without a reasonable, responsible offramp — we don't just risk falling short of our energy targets; we put our economy and national security in jeopardy. Let's be honest with the American people. Some credits in the IRA should end. Others support strategic advantages. And across the board, what will truly unleash energy production isn't a new spending or deduction line — it's liberating American ingenuity from the shackles of Washington bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation. Perhaps most important, Congress needs to get to work on substantive permitting reform and fix the bureaucracy that is preventing all forms of energy from being deployed. It's time for Congress to act — not by reflexively tearing down or playing political power games, but by building smarter. Intelligently solving the right problems by delivering a structured offramp to tax credits and common-sense deregulation will unleash American energy — and produce economic prosperity, a healthier planet and true national security.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Pacers' Rick Carlisle thought Knicks firing Tom Thibodeau was ‘one of those fake AI things'
OKLAHOMA CITY — Indiana Pacers coach Rick Carlisle thought news of the Knicks' firing Tom Thibodeau was 'was one of those fake AI things' at first. 'No way. There's no way possible,' Carlisle said Wednesday on NBA Finals Media Day. 'I have great respect for Thibs. I go back with him a very long way. I was surprised.' Advertisement Carlisle's Pacers were the last team Thibodeau coached against while directing the Knicks, with Indiana eliminating New York in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals in Indianapolis. Two days later, the Knicks relieved Thibodeau of his duties, suggesting a change was needed for New York to take the next step of winning a championship. The Pacers, meanwhile, will play Oklahoma City in Game 1 of the NBA Finals at 8:30 p.m. on Thursday. Carlisle is not only a friend and colleague of Thibodeau, but he is also the president of the National Basketball Coaches Association, a trade group for pro and college coaches. So when there is ever a surprise firing — and in the NBA it happens all the time — Carlisle is often asked about it. For some context, the head coaches who won NBA titles in 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2023 are no longer employed by the teams they guided to titles, a testament to how fickle the industry is when reaching the ultimate goal does not bring much job security. Of the coaches who won the finals in those years and were later dismissed, only Nick Nurse held on in Toronto for more than three seasons after a championship, with his title coming in 2019. 'I always say shocked — sometimes you get numb and you're not shocked,' said Carlisle, who has the Pacers in the NBA Finals (as a No. 4 seed) for the first time since 2000. 'The Knicks have such a unique situation with so much attention and such a large fan base and such a worldwide following, it's one of the most difficult jobs to take. The guys that have been most successful, Red Holzman, Pat Riley, Jeff Van Gundy, Rick Pitino, had a short run but a very effective run. 'There were a lot of lean years,' Carlisle continued. 'Thibs went in there and changed so much.' In five seasons in New York, Thibodeau went 224-176 in the regular season and 24-23 in the playoffs. The Knicks entered this year's tournament as a No. 3 seed after going 0-10 against the league's top three teams during the regular season. But the Knicks survived their first-round series against Detroit and then upset the defending-champion Boston Celtics to get to the conference finals for the first time in 25 years. Advertisement 'I know how the players feel about him, too, so there's not much else to say,' Carlisle said. 'I mean, teams and ownership can make these decisions unilaterally, and it's their right to do that. 'So, Tom will certainly be fine,' Carlisle said. 'I don't think he's going to have any problem finding his next job. It's just going to depend on when he's ready to jump back in again.'
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
What is an autopen? Here's what to know about the devices used by presidents, writers and more.
The autopen — a machine first patented centuries ago — is having a moment in the political spotlight, following allegations made by President Trump that former President Biden used one to sign pardons. That's prompting questions about what autopens do, how they work and why the device is now stirring up controversy. The devices use pens or other writing instruments to place a person's signature on documents, books or other papers, such as in the case of a college president, for example, who would otherwise be required to sign hundreds or thousands of diplomas for graduating students by hand. Mr. Trump raised the issue in March when he claimed Mr. Biden's alleged use of an autopen to sign preemptive pardons to members of the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol rendered them "void" and "vacant." Mr. Trump raised the issue again on Wednesday, when he posted on Truth Social, "With the exception of the RIGGED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020, THE AUTOPEN IS THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!" The autopen has also become a focus of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project, which claims that Mr. Biden's alleged use of an autopen given his "clear cognitive decline ... raises additional questions for investigators." Regardless of the allegations, the autopen is hardly a novel device for the political sphere, with the Shapell Manuscript Foundation noting that one of the devices was bought by Thomas Jefferson soon after it was patented in 1803. Throughout U.S. history, presidents have relied on autopens, although the Shapell Manuscript Foundation notes that some commanders-in-chief have been guarded about their use of the machine. "Whereas once the official White House position was to deny the existence or usage of the autopen, today its existence is more of an open secret," the foundation notes. A spokesperson for Mr. Biden didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. What is an autopen? An autopen, also called a robot pen, is a machine that automates a person's signature with a pen or other writing instrument, versus a scanned signature, which is a digital image of a signature. Unlike people, the machine will never get writer's cramp, and can replicate a person's signature on high volumes of letters, certificates, diplomas and other documents, according to Automated Signature Technology, an autopen manufacturer. Its Ghostwriter machine uses a smart card or USB flash drive to store signatures and phrases that can be replicated on paper. The company's machines "write at human speed ... to produce quality handwriting reproductions," Automated Signature Technology says. The Ghostwriter can use any type of writing instrument, from a ballpoint pen to crayons, and can write on a variety of materials with different thicknesses, it added. Another autopen manufacturer, the Autopen Company, said its machines can be used for "signing certificates, correspondence, photographs and posters, almost anything up to 1/4 inch thick. Factory modifications can be incorporated for signing books and sports memorabilia." One site that sells autopens says that high-end machines used by governments can cost between $5,000 to $20,000 each. Neither the Autopen Company nor Automated Signature Technology immediately responded to requests for comment from CBS MoneyWatch. Have other presidents used autopens? Yes. President Johnson even allowed the autopen to be photographed in the White House. The photo appeared in The National Enquirer with a 1968 article titled, "The Robot That Sits in for the President," according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. Other presidents who have relied on autopens include John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, among others. Presidents have typically used an autopen to sign routine correspondence to constituents, like letters recognizing life milestones, as well as legislation and pardons. During the Gerald Ford administration, the president and First Lady Betty Ford occasionally signed documents and other correspondence by hand, but White House staff more often used autopen machines to reproduce their signatures on letters and photographs. Mr. Trump has also used an autopen, telling reporters on Air Force One in March that he'd used the device "only for very unimportant papers." "You know, we get thousands and thousands of letters, letters of support for young people, from people that aren't feeling well, etcetera. But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful," Mr. Trump said at the time, in reference to his claims former President Biden used the technology to sign pardons. President George W. Bush asked the Justice Department in 2005 if it was constitutional to use an autopen to sign a bill, with the department concluding that "the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. contributed to this report.
