Opinion: Utah leads, Washington spends
In Utah, we know what it takes to do things right. We don't need federal lectures about energy efficiency — we live it every day. When you're heating a home through a mountain winter or running a small business on a tight budget, you learn to work smart.
That's why the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) doesn't exactly land here. Sure, the headlines sound promising: up to $3,200 a year in tax credits for upgrades like insulation, windows and heat pumps. But if you read the fine print — like the IRS Fact Sheet FS-2022-40 — you'll notice it's not that simple.
Claiming the credit means navigating a maze of IRS rules. For something advertised as 'help,' it sure doesn't feel easy.
Washington's idea of efficiency doesn't fit Utah.
The federal government's favorite solutions — like heat pumps — aren't always the best fit for Utah's diverse climates. What works in a Salt Lake suburb might not work in a small town at 7,000 feet elevation. Yet the IRA's incentives mostly reward trendy technology, not practical upgrades tailored to where — and how — people actually live.
Meanwhile, local contractors and small businesses are left grappling with federal red tape just to participate.
Utah's already leading — and we don't need permission.
Our state has long invested in renewable energy, smart grid technology and energy efficiency — all without heavy-handed federal mandates. We know what works here because we live here. Some of the IRA provisions can help Utah's investments: there are three projects tied to the IRA worth $1 billion of investments in the state.
For instance, the 45X advanced manufacturing tax credit, which creates the incentive for companies to manufacture here in America, is a core part of an America-first trade policy. Recent Rainey Center polling found that 59% of voters support clean energy incentives, but only when the products are made in America, by American companies. Only 16% want these credits to end. However, voters don't support tax credits going to foreign companies — these policies need to end.
Another key provision of the IRA that makes sense is technology-neutral tax credits. Rather than creating a system where the government picks winners, technology-neutral tax credits let carbon capture, geothermal and clean fossil fuels compete on the same level as solar and wind. A recent Clean Energy Buyers Association report shows why: they find that full repeal of the technology-neutral investment and production tax credits would lead to an annual average yearly increase of more than $110 for annual electricity prices.
Projections suggest these positive aspects of the IRA will boost Utah's GDP by $1 billion in 2030. These policies make sense — but tech-neutral tax credits for innovation should never have been bundled with tax breaks for Chinese companies and a slush fund for radical left wing NGOs.
That's why Senator John Curtis is one of the four senators advocating for a surgical approach to repealing the IRA.
If Washington really wants to help, they'll get out of the way and let local leaders and businesses drive practical solutions.
Utahns don't need more complexity. We need flexibility, respect and policies that actually meet our needs — not Washington's wish list.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
26 minutes ago
- Business Insider
World Bank restores funding to Uganda despite controversial anti-gay law
The World Bank has restored funding to Uganda nearly two years after suspending new financing in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The World Bank has resumed funding to Uganda after a two-year suspension instigated by the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The Bank justified resumption through effective mitigation measures within ongoing Ugandan projects to limit potential adverse impacts. While Uganda's AHA remains unchanged, the decision signals shifting geopolitical dynamics by international financial institutions. The World bank in 2023, suspended funding to Uganda after the country's parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), saying the law contradicted its values. The legislation sparked international condemnation for imposing severe penalties on LGBTQ+ individuals, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. According to Reuters, the World Bank said it had developed a working relationship with Ugandan authorities to implement strong measures aimed at mitigating potential harm resulting from the law. " We have now determined the mitigation measures rolled out over the last several months in all ongoing projects in Uganda to be satisfactory," " Consequently, the Bank has prepared three new projects in sectors with significant development needs – social protection, education, and forced displacement/refugees, which have been approved by the Board." said a Bank spokesperson, who requested anonymity. The decision to resume funding signals a shift in the Bank's engagement strategy with Uganda and raises broader questions about how global institutions navigate the tension between promoting human rights and maintaining development partnerships. While there has been no indication of changes to Uganda's legal position on LGBTQ+ rights, the World Bank's renewed support may reflect wider geopolitical and economic considerations in the region. How the world reacted to Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), signed into law in May 2023, imposed sweeping criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, including life imprisonment and, in cases of so-called 'aggravated homosexuality,' the death penalty. The law drew swift and widespread condemnation from Western governments, human rights organizations, and international institutions, and was widely regarded as one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Beyond the World Bank's suspension of funding, several Western governments issued strong rebukes and implemented measures affecting Uganda's international standing. The United States led the diplomatic response, with the Biden administration describing the law as 'a tragic violation of universal human rights.' In turn, Washington imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials believed to be involved in the legislation and initiated a review of its financial assistance to the country. The European Union also condemned the law, emphasizing its incompatibility with international human rights norms and warning that it would reassess its relationship with Uganda. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the legislation 'shocking' and 'discriminatory,' urging its immediate repeal. Outside of official government action, Western-based human rights organizations, NGOs, and civil society groups amplified the global outcry. Advocacy campaigns were launched to pressure the Ugandan government, while some multinational corporations voiced concern about the law's potential impact on employees and business operations in the country. Despite this international backlash, Ugandan officials have welcomed the recent restoration of World Bank funding, portraying it as an endorsement of the country's sovereignty and development agenda.
Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Xi Bets Trump Detente Will Lead to Future Wins on Chips, Tariffs
In the early hours of Wednesday, Donald Trump declared that Xi Jinping was 'VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Some 36 hours later, the US leader said he got what he wanted: A commitment to restore the flow of rare earth magnets. It's less clear what Xi got in return, apart from putting a lid on further punitive US measures. One of the few clear takeaways appeared to be an assurance for the US to welcome Chinese students, a major issue in China but also not one that would explain why Xi got on the phone after making Trump wait for months.
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
