logo
House GOP moves to slash renewable energy tax breaks

House GOP moves to slash renewable energy tax breaks

The Verge22-05-2025

House Republicans advanced a sweeping spending package that would roll back Biden-era tax credits for renewable energy projects. If the bill passes the Senate and makes it to President Donald Trump's desk to sign, it could deal a serious blow to renewables, new nuclear technologies, and clean energy manufacturing across the US.
The rollbacks would undo much of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which Democrats touted as the biggest investment in climate and clean energy initiatives. Losing these tax credits would slow efforts to build out enough new energy sources to meet rising electricity demand, as well as previous commitments the US has made on the international stage to help stop the climate crisis.
'This package is really economic malpractice,' says Brad Townsend, vice president for policy and outreach at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). The bill that the House ultimately passed was even harsher on clean energy than a draft released last week. 'The original version was bad. This version is worse.'
'This package is really economic malpractice.'
Based on the previous draft, C2ES and research firm Greenline Insights estimated that restrictions on which projects would be eligible for tax credits would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost GDP. An updated bill released overnight and passed early this morning could lead to even larger losses if the Senate ultimately passes it as-is.
Notably, the bill stipulates that projects must start construction within 60 days of it being enacted and placed in service by the end of 2028 in order to qualify for clean energy tax credits.
That would effectively make it impossible for new projects to qualify, given the long lead times needed to secure permits and financing before starting construction. During remarks on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the provision a ' clean job kill switch.'
'It's one of the most devastating things added at the last minute in this bill snuck in the dark of night. And we in the Senate — and I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in this — are going to fight this every step of the way,' he said.
Nearly 977,000 jobs and $177 billion in GDP would have been lost as a result of requirements in the previous draft that stipulated that projects be placed in service by 2029 to qualify for credits, according to C2ES and Greenline Insights. Again, that draft was less stringent than the text that ultimately passed.
The bill seemingly includes a carveout for nuclear energy industry, to which some GOP members, including Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, have ties. Wright dialed into a meeting with Republican lawmakers on Wednesday night to discuss the tax credits, Politico reported. The bill subsequently says that new nuclear reactors would only have to commence construction by 2028 in order to qualify. But even though the provisions aren't as strict for new nuclear projects to qualify, the bill still sets unrealistic goals. Next-generation nuclear reactors aren't expected to be ready to deploy commercially until the 2030s.
The bill also ends an IRA policy that allowed renewable projects to transfer credits to one another, dealing another economic blow to developers outside of nuclear energy. It disqualifies projects owned by or receiving 'material assistance from prohibited foreign entities.' Those restrictions are essentially unworkable, according to clean energy advocates and industry experts — considering that clean energy supply chains are still concentrated in China and that it could bar developers with investors from other countries. Restrictions on the involvement of foreign entities alone could lead to $237 billion in lost GDP, Greenline Insights and C2ES previously estimated.
Ironically, Republican districts stood to benefit the most from IRA incentives for new solar and wind farms and factories. Investments were concentrated in rural areas, and 73 percent of manufacturing facilities for clean power components are in red states, according to a recent industry report from the American Clean Power Association.
'Texas in particular is going to be hammered by the package as written,' Townsend says. His organization's analysis found that Texas would lose the most jobs — more than 170,000 — from tax credit restrictions initially proposed in the bill.
'Texas in particular is going to be hammered.'
Fortunately, solar and wind power are already cheaper sources of electricity than fossil fuels in many cases and have been making steady gains in the US for decades thanks to falling costs. To be sure, developers now have to contend with new challenges posed by Trump's tariff regime. But the industry has managed to make progress — now providing more than 20 percent of the US electricity mix — despite years of on-again, off-again credits prior to the IRA codifying incentives in a way that offered more long-term certainty for the industry.
What the tax credits in the IRA were supposed to help accomplish, however, was a dramatic ramp-up of carbon-free energy needed to stop the climate crisis. The IRA was expected to slash US greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent from peak levels by the end of the decade, according to independent analyses. That nearly got the nation to the goal that former President Joe Biden committed to under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was cutting pollution by at least 50 percent by 2030. And since the US is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions historically than any other country, the decisions that Congress makes now have consequences for the planet.
Trump, of course, has called climate change a hoax despite mountains of evidence showing how emissions from fossil fuels exacerbate floods, storms, droughts, fires, and other climate disasters.
Aside from worsening weather events putting pressure on the US' aging power grid, the country is also grappling with a sudden rise in electricity demand from new AI data centers, crypto mining, electric vehicles, and increased domestic manufacturing. Electricity demand could grow by 25 percent by 2030, according to one forecast published this week by consulting firm ICF. By slowing the deployment of clean energy, the repeal of IRA incentives would lead to more pollution and raise household energy costs by up to 7 percent by 2035, according to a recent analysis by research firm Rhodium Group.
The Senate now has to wrangle with the entirety of Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' It also includes proposals to extend and expand income tax cuts, increase military spending, fund mass deportations, impose new restrictions on Medicaid and food assistance programs, and more. Even though the Republican-controlled Senate is likely to fall in line with Trump's agenda, there's still time for proposals in the bill to evolve.
In its current version, 'Americans' electric bills will soar. Hundreds of factories will close. Hundreds of billions of dollars in local investments will vanish. Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs,' Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), said in a press statement. But, Hopper added, 'it's not too late for Congress to get this right. The solar and [energy] storage industry is ready to get to work with the US Senate on a more thoughtful and measured approach.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump vs. Harvard has international athletes scrambling for answers
Trump vs. Harvard has international athletes scrambling for answers

Washington Post

time22 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump vs. Harvard has international athletes scrambling for answers

Not long after President Donald Trump's first attempt to bar Harvard from enrolling international students last month, the school's men's soccer team, along with athletic teams all over campus, received a note from the coaching staff. They were monitoring the situation, the coaches said. The school was monitoring it, too. Everyone, it seemed, was monitoring a situation that had gone haywire in mid-May, but that provided no immediate clarity on what it meant for athletes with student visas. Could they stay at Harvard, for their classes and for next season? Could the seniors graduate? How about going home to visit their families this summer? 'It's the type of thing that creates this general feeling of uncertainty and unease and tension around campus,' said Jan Riecke, who was a senior captain on last season's team and graduated last month. (Riecke lived in Switzerland and Germany before attending Harvard, but he was born in the United States to German parents and is a U.S. citizen). 'It's a tension among students, among professors, because it's not just the people who are directly affected, the international students and athletes, but also your teammates and coaches, right? You play and train next to them, so you obviously feel for the fact that they are worried. They are worried about their futures.' A day after the coaches sent that message, Harvard sued the Trump administration to maintain its ability to enroll international students. A judge twice ruled in Harvard's favor, most recently blocking the Department of Homeland Security's order while the legal process plays out. But on Wednesday evening, Trump doubled down, suspending entry into the United States for any new Harvard students or exchange visitors with F, M or J visas. The next steps came in a now-familiar rhythm: By Thursday, Harvard had amended its legal complaint. By Friday morning, a federal judge had ruled with Harvard again, blocking the president's latest order, which attempts to reject Harvard-sponsored visas. The back-and-forth continues. But despite any temporary relief, the political battle has clouded the present and short-term future for some of Harvard's athletes and teams. For the 2024-25 academic year, 139 athletes listed international hometowns on team rosters, accounting for 17 percent of all athletes on those squads, according to a Washington Post analysis. The analysis included only Harvard's NCAA championship sports, plus women's rugby, which is one of the NCAA's emerging sports meant to provide opportunities to women. Harvard has several other programs, such as squash and sailing, meaning the uncertainty reaches even further. Some athletes listing international hometowns could, like Riecke, be U.S. citizens and therefore not dependent on the status of student visas. Based on hometowns, in the past two semesters, Harvard athletes represented roughly three dozen countries, Canada and Britain by far the most common. Ten out of 30 men's soccer players last season had international hometowns listed. Other teams, including women's soccer and field hockey, had even more athletes from abroad. On seven Harvard teams in The Post's analysis, athletes with international hometowns accounted for more than 30 percent of the roster. Those teams would struggle to compete without them. An athletic department spokesman declined to make any officials available for an interview, pointing The Post to university statements calling Trump's attacks illegal and retaliatory. More than a half dozen coaches and dozens of current and recently graduated Harvard athletes did not respond or declined to comment, including several who cited fears of retaliation from the Trump administration. Across NCAA sports in 2023-24, roughly 7 percent of D-I athletes were not U.S. citizens, according to the NCAA's demographics data. And while international athletes still fill a small fraction of D-I rosters, their share has grown by more than 40 percent since 2011-12, the first academic year included in the NCAA's public data, which is self-reported by schools. In the eight-school Ivy League, the share of NCAA athletes who are not U.S. citizens has nearly doubled since 2012, jumping to 6 percent in 2024. But the proportion of international athletes in the conference slightly trails the overall Division I mark. (The NCAA does not publish demographic data aggregated by school, and Harvard declined to provide data on how many of its athletes are not U.S. citizens.) 'This is not exclusively a Harvard issue,' said Ksenia Maiorova, a leading sports immigration attorney. 'This is something that has the potential to have tentacles in other spaces. What we're seeing is that the administration feels comfortable weaponizing the student visa for its goals of political retribution against a particular institution.' As much as possible, Harvard treats its athletes like all other students on campus, meaning any pressing visa questions have been routed to the school's international office. 'We don't have an academic services office just for student-athletes, we don't have housing just for student-athletes, so we also don't have an international office just for student-athletes,' said one school official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss this issue. 'And that international office, as you can imagine, is very, very busy providing support to all students.' But it's not just Harvard's current international athletes who are affected by the confusion and escalating policies. Incoming freshmen from other countries are feeling uneasy. So, too, are international recruits who were considering Harvard and are now having second thoughts. Lars Blenckers is a co-founder of Plus31 Sports, a company that mostly guides international field hockey and soccer players through the recruiting process with U.S. colleges. While he's not working with any current Harvard athletes, he does have two field hockey players who are supposed to enroll and begin training in August. One is from South Africa, the other from New Zealand. Naturally, on the same day Harvard coaches were scrambling to contact their international athletes, Blenckers started hearing from the players' parents. His phone has been buzzing almost nonstop since. The parents are asking whether their daughters can still attend Harvard, he said. If not, they're wondering whether they could defer a year and try again next summer, when the political turmoil will have hopefully died down. The athlete from South Africa has secured her student visa. The athlete from New Zealand, however, is still trying to schedule an appointment, another major complication. In late May, the U.S. State Department paused appointments for student or exchange visitor (F, M and J) visas. 'That system is just completely blocked now, so you cannot even go online and book any appointment,' Blenckers said of his athlete from New Zealand. 'So it's also very uncertain that even if Harvard is allowed to accept international students, can these athletes get their visas in time?' Pedro Mol is the CEO of Slamstox, a Netherlands-based company that also helps international athletes land opportunities with U.S. colleges. In the past few months, many families he works with have soured on not just Harvard but all Ivy League schools. Columbia remains in Trump's crosshairs. Maiorova, the sports immigration attorney, listed California-Berkeley, Michigan and the Ivies as the archetype of schools that could lose high-level athletes because of clashes with the president. Mol, a Netherlands native and a former Division I athlete, said he had a male tennis player flip his choice from Harvard to Georgia Tech this year. At Georgia Tech, the athlete would receive an athletic scholarship, which Ivy League schools don't offer. There would also be a better chance of earning name, image and likeness (NIL) money, because the Ivy League has been slow to warm to athletes earning money beyond small endorsement deals. 'And there just isn't the same political uncertainty there,' Mol said. 'The media here in Holland is pretty obsessed with Trump. Everything he does right now, it is blasted all over, so we obviously get a ton of questions. We do a monthly newsletter, and recently we did one on how Trump's orders affect our athletes. It was our most read ever by far.' After graduation in late May, Riecke, the former men's soccer captain, set out on a European trip with some of his teammates. As a last hurrah, they wanted to show each other the countries they grew up in. It has made Riecke think about the efforts to remove international students and athletes from Harvard, which would have made it impossible for him to make lifelong friends from other cultures. He hopes the worst developments have passed. 'It's brought people together as well,' Riecke said. 'You feel like you just pat someone on the shoulder once more than you would before, tell them: 'Hey, hopefully it's going to be all right. We're here for you.' I think that's the response we've gotten from a lot of the community.'

Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.
Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.

Washington Post

time23 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.

When Arizona Diamondbacks ace Corbin Burnes left a pitch up to CJ Abrams last Sunday and immediately motioned for trainers, everyone at Chase Field understood what it might mean. And when cameras caught Burnes appearing to express concern about his elbow, there was little reason to doubt his self-diagnosis. Burnes has been one of the game's most durable starters since the start of the 2021 season. He knew this would change that. Diamondbacks Manager Torey Lovullo on Friday confirmed what Burnes and others had already suspected: The ace to whom Arizona committed $210 million over the next six years will miss the rest of the 2025 season and most of 2026 because he needs Tommy John surgery. Burnes, 30, will have the procedure next week. All injuries spur ripples — sometimes through a team's active roster, sometimes deep into an organization's minor league depth. But an injury to Burnes, one of the game's preeminent starting pitchers anchoring the rotation of a would-be playoff team fighting for its life, will have aftershocks near and far. The first jolt, of course, will be felt in the desert, where the Diamondbacks are hovering around .500 while trying to steady a pitching staff that was disappointing even with Burnes. Their other ace, Zac Gallen, has been uncharacteristically mediocre. Promising righty Brandon Pfaadt has been getting pummeled and lefty Eduardo Rodriguez only returned from injury Friday, meaning the Diamondbacks cannot be sure what he will give them. As such, if they intend to contend, they will likely need to add a starter at or before the trade deadline. Demand was already high, and with several teams still weighing their commitment to 2025, supply remains limited. But the Burnes injury could also change more than just the Diamondbacks' 2025 calculus; Arizona's owner, Ken Kendrick, has invested in winning recently but could seize the whiff of mediocrity to balance his recently bloated budget. If the Diamondbacks fall out of contention — and without Burnes, the chances of that increase — they could seek trades for first baseman Josh Naylor (making $10.9 million this year), third baseman Eugenio Suarez ($15 million), Gallen ($13.5 million) and right-hander Merrill Kelly ($7 million), all of whom would represent significant savings even with just the post-deadline portions of their salaries gone. Any savings could be crucial, because Burnes's injury also complicates Arizona's offseason. Gallen will be a free agent for the first time, and he will almost certainly want to test the market. Kelly will be a free agent, too. So is Jordan Montgomery, who also underwent Tommy John surgery this year. That leaves Arizona with only three sure things in next year's rotation: Rodriguez, Pfaadt and Ryne Nelson, who was in Arizona's bullpen but has started three games for the Diamondbacks this year. They will need more to contend in the National League West, which means they might need to be major players in this year's offseason starting pitching market, even though they just gave Burnes the largest pitching contract in their history. Fortunately for anyone seeking starting pitching this winter, options abound. Gallen, Framber Valdez and Dylan Cease headline a class that will also include Ranger Suárez, Chris Bassitt and Zach Eflin, not to mention the dozen or so strong starters who could opt out of deals if they so choose. But one more team on the prowl increases demand this winter — just like one more seller changes the entire trade deadline a few months earlier. For that reason, the aftershocks of the Burnes injury will also be felt in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and beyond. If the Diamondbacks do decide to sell, even an underperforming Gallen would be one of the more coveted assets available — a potential fate-alterer for any postseason team. Suarez, too, offers the kind of clubhouse pep and on-field power that would make him a highly sought after deadline option. The Yankees, for example, have been hunting for a third base solution all year. Naylor has plenty of pop and postseason experience, too. Kelly has proven himself to be as tough as they come. If the Diamondbacks sell, any one of those players could change a team's October trajectory, if the stars align. Arizona is currently one of several teams that expected to contend and are underachieving. The Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, Baltimore Orioles and Texas Rangers are all hoping to stave off a deadline sale by rejuvenating their chances over the next two months. The more that do so, the higher demand for Arizona's assets will be. The Diamondbacks have not been ones to cave in recent years, in large part because few teams know better how quickly fates can change. In 2023, they found themselves two games under .500 on August 11. They ended up in the World Series. But rallies like those are hard to engineer even with an annual Cy Young contender in the rotation. Without one … well, the contending vultures are starting to gather in the desert.

Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?
Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?

It's never a good idea trying to second-guess the Oracle of Omaha. Warren Buffett sold a huge chunk of his Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock last year. It wasn't the first time he trimmed his position in the tech giant. Back in 2021, he admitted selling was 'probably a mistake'. But, amid recent share price weakness, I doubt he will repeat the same line this time. Recent soundings from Apple CEO Tim Cook seem to indicate he has taken a leaf out of Buffett's playbook. In a recent earnings call, he pushed investors to be patient as it attempts to roll out AI features in the iPhone. 'Not first, but best' was how he put it in an interview last year. In an investing landscape measured in quarterly earnings, though, many don't have much patience. In some respects, he is right. Three years into the generative AI revolution and not one consumer product has emerged, other than ChatGPT, of course. And that's despite the industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and with the might of the media hyping the technology on an almost daily basis. Recently, Jony Ive, the architect instrumental in the design of the iPhone, sold his company to OpenAI for $6.5bn. At the not-for-profit startup, he is working on what has been described as a 'screen-free' device. Some reports highlight that mass production could start as early as 2027. The threat is clearly on Apple's radar. During the ongoing Google anti-trust trial, one of Apple's senior executive stated: 'You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now, as crazy as that sounds.' Given the present state of hardware technology and the extremely vague statements that have come from Sam Altman regarding no-screen devices, I'm not willing to give much credence to these remarks. But, of course, that could change in the years ahead. Apple has a history of not rushing into a new technology, until its full potential is understood. It was a little-known company when General Magic invented the first smartphone. It didn't invent the music player, either. The biggest short-term risk to the stock is tariffs. Apple has undoubtedly been the biggest beneficiary of outsourcing manufacturing to China. It has certainly been a major contributor in pushing the valuation to $3trn. Trump's ambition of seeing the iPhone mass produced in the US is unlikely to ever happen, in my opinion. With consumers being squeezed from all directions these days, I don't believe they would ever stomach paying up to $3,000 for one. Tim Cook has already guided to expect $900m in additional costs over the next quarter. A tiny figure, yes, but I can't see it ending there. Without price increases, the frothy valuation looks unsustainable. As I just said, I'm not sure that consumers will be as obliging as in the past and accept such increases. As for Buffett, he still holds a significant chunk of Apple stock. But with a trailing price-to-earnings of 32, I'm not sure the risks are fully priced in. Therefore, I won't be investing. The post Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Andrew Mackie has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store