logo
Buddy Carter, GOP rep from Georgia, on solar power, EVs, and nuclear

Buddy Carter, GOP rep from Georgia, on solar power, EVs, and nuclear

Yahoo11-06-2025
Rep. Buddy Carter, the Republican congressman for Georgia's 1st congressional district, joined Canary Media's Julian Spector for an interview on stage on June 4 at our Canary Live event in Washington, D.C. Listen to the audio or read the transcript, which has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Julian Spector: Congressman Buddy Carter from Georgia — there he is. Let's give him a warm Canary Media welcome.
It's an honor to have you here. We're just kicking off our first live event in Washington, D.C. Everyone is into the energy scene — the technologies and the policies. I wanted to start by saying why we were so excited to have you here. You're the Republican congressman from Georgia's 1st district.
Buddy Carter: Thank you! My district is around Savannah. You've got the entire coast of pristine coastline and two major seaports: the Port of Savannah and No. 3 container port in the country, and the Port of Brunswick, the No. 1 roll-on, roll-off port in the country. A lot of military presence, Fort Stewart, Kings Bay, two Coast Guard stations. A strong forestry presence, a strong ag presence.
Spector: And recently, about an $8 billion EV factory, right?
Carter: Yes, a $7.6 billion investment by Hyundai, the largest single economic development project in the history of our state. And we're very, very proud of that.
As I say, $7.6 billion to generate about 8,500 jobs — it will probably be that much more investment and probably many more jobs and ancillary businesses. We're very excited about it. They've already geared up and have announced that they're even going to expand before they even got started.
Spector: And I think it's making the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 9. So if you have one of those cars, it'll come from your district.
I'm from D.C., and I ended up going to college down in the South. (Go Blue Devils, figure that one out.) But sometimes, I think D.C. folks, we don't always keep up with all the things happening in the South. There's really a cluster of innovation and factories there. I was wondering if you could say, what has clean energy meant to the economy of Georgia, both in the manufacturing side and the installation of solar and battery projects?
Carter: First of all, Georgia is the No. 7 state in the nation in solar energy. We're very proud of that. We've worked very diligently to make that happen. I like to say in Georgia, we've got a lot of pine trees, a lot of sunshine, a lot of pretty girls. We've got a lot to be proud of, and certainly sunshine and solar is very important.
I also would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that Georgia is the first state to have nuclear reactors in the last 30 years — Plant Vogtle.
I'm a nuclear fan. Plant Vogtle is the largest clean energy plant in the United States. We added two reactors, reactors 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle. And now, in addition to Plant Vogtle, Plant Hatch, which is in my district, is delivering about 33% of the energy in the state of Georgia right now. I think that's very significant.
Spector: That's a lot more than the nation as a whole. It's about 18% or 19% of overall U.S. generation. So you're above the national average there.
Carter: We talk a lot about the small [modular] reactors, SMRs, and we're excited about them, too. But I think it's significant to note that Southern Co. has said that their next investment is going to be another [AP1000]; they like the big reactors. I thought that was pretty significant for them to say that.
We look forward to that because nuclear power is a big part of what we're doing. We also have battery plants in the state of Georgia.
Georgia, for 11 years in a row, has been the No. 1 state in which to do business, and there's a reason for that. We are under good leadership from our governor, from our legislature. We create a pro-business environment, but we've also had the availability and accessibility and affordability of energy, which is very important.
Now let's talk about affordability, because I think that's an important thing to talk about as well. Yes, nuclear power is more expensive at this point, but I think it's important to note that the difference between the cost of reactor No. 3 and reactor No. 4 was significant.
We learned a lot of things when we built reactor No. 3 that we were able to apply to reactor No. 4 that saved a lot of money.
Spector: So for full journalistic duty, there was quite a bit of going over budget on the total Vogtle project, but that's an interesting point about bringing the overruns down with the learning.
Speaking of the cost of energy, I think we can't ignore there's a little something going on in Washington this week, which is this big, beautiful budget. I was looking back over a letter you wrote with some of your colleagues from the Conservative Climate Caucus last summer, basically saying that prematurely repealing the energy tax credits, particularly those used to justify investments that already broke ground, could undermine private investment and stop development that's already ongoing. And I think that applies both to factories that are trying to make things in America, and power plants, solar plants.
So, you voted for the budget bill. What happened between the argument you were making in that letter last summer and the bill that you ultimately voted for?
Carter: Let's stay focused on what we're trying to do with one big, beautiful bill. If we do not pass that, Americans will be looking at the largest tax increase they've ever seen.
In fact, I've signed three letters saying that we should not take a sledgehammer to the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead, we should take a scalpel, because I've always said, and I continue to say, if these policies result in stabilizing our supply chain or if they result in domestic manufacturing, why wouldn't we look at them? Why wouldn't we keep them? That's Republican priorities anyway.
I want to share a quick story with you because I thought it was somewhat humorous. I was calling up a supporter. And, you know, I'm running statewide. I should have mentioned that I'm running for U.S. Senate in the next election.
I called up a potential supporter, and he was saying, 'Well, you signed that letter and you're not supporting the president because you're not doing away with the IRA.'
And I said, 'Well, wait a minute now, why would we?'
He responded: 'Well, if you want to keep some of those things, you ought to just do away with the IRA and then bring them back. So what's the difference?'
Give me a break. Republican ideas, Democratic ideas. We do it all the time — we take things that the Democrats did, we claim them to be ours, and they do the same thing. They're good ideas, and I think it's important to note that. Some of these things did result in stabilizing the supply chain and in domestic manufacturing. Why wouldn't we keep those things? Why wouldn't we look at that? The Republicans want that just as much as the Democrats.
Now, having said that, let me make one thing clear: The decision to make the $7.6 billion investment and to build that plant was made pre-IRA.
Now, would they like to have the tax credits? Of course they would; any business would. But I think it is significant that we understand that decision was made. Let me assure you, as I have assured them, they made a wise decision. There's going to be a market for EVs.
I'm one who strongly believes that the government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers, because when the government chooses winners and losers, consumers lose. There's going to be a market for EVs. It may not be in rural South Georgia, but eventually it will. I can assure you, in the urban areas, Hyundai is going to do great.
Spector: If the current budget gets enacted, it almost guarantees a lower demand for their product. Are you worried about the jobs in your district, or any kind of follow-on impacts from that?
Carter: I'm not naive enough to believe that it's not going to have some impact. But as I said, the decision that Hyundai made was before those tax credits were there. I think they're going to feel like they made a very wise decision in building this plant, making this investment.
I think it ought to be market-driven. I don't think the government should be telling people what kind of car to be driving or what kind of appliance you're going to be using. I just don't think that's the role of the government.
Spector: Do you see yourself having any role in trying to talk to your Senate colleagues and see if some of these credits could get back in on the Senate side in a way that ends up in the final package? Are you actively talking to anybody about that or trying to make that case?
Carter: Yes, yes. I do. I signed all three letters, and I didn't just sign them — I meant it. I truly feel that way. So yes, I have been talking to some of our Senate colleagues, although I quite honestly don't know how much difference it makes. I'm talking to these guys and trying to join them. I don't know why.
The main thing is we've got to get these tax cuts extended. We have to make sure that we don't have the largest tax increase in the history of the world.
We have companies coming into our office every day. They need stability. They need certainty in order to make investments. I understand that — I was in business for myself for 32 years. I ran three independent retail pharmacies — talk about swimming with sharks, I was up against the big boys.
The government's been run in the past few decades by executive orders. We've got to get away from that. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, you ought to feel, if you're a member of Congress, that the legislative branch has got to assert themselves and their authority as our forefathers intended for it to be.
I am trying to encourage some of these senators and, even still, some House members, because it's going to come back to us.
I'm not going to mislead you. It's a heavy lift. I think the biggest hurdle we're trying to get over is in the Senate, and some of those who, first of all, feel like, you know, we didn't address the debt. That's not what we were doing this for. Does it need to be addressed? Obviously. I'm on the budget committee. Obviously it needs to be addressed. And don't think that we can't do another reconciliation package. We can do another one, and I would submit to you that we need to do a budget reconciliation package for debt reduction.
I'm chair of the health subcommittee. I'm a pharmacist by profession. Medicaid, Medicare — we need reforms in that, but not here. Keep the main thing the main thing, and the main thing is to get these tax cuts extended, because if we don't, the impact it's going to have on our economy is going to be devastating.
Spector: And then another kind of impact that's been flagged recently in a tweet from Tesla's Elon Musk and his electric car company: It's about the changes to tax credits, jeopardizing the ability to build the new power production we need for the AI boom.
After decades of pretty much flat demand for electricity, we're now seeing pretty mind-blowing expectations of how much is going to be needed in the next few years. Solar is the thing that's getting built the most across the country right now, and if the credits sort of shake up the investment landscape there, they're saying it could jeopardize 60 gigawatts of annual deployment of clean energy.
Do you think your colleagues are grappling with that, a possibility that these cuts might actually undermine the president's AI agenda and the sort of economic vitality that's powered by electricity?
Carter: Look, I don't care what economic sector you're talking about. In Congress right now, the buzz at the Capitol is AI. Every committee is having a hearing on AI. Health subcommittee, we are having hearings on AI, and so is natural resources. Everything is AI right now.
We understand now, to your point, the demand for energy. That's why I'm an all-of-the-above type energy strategist, because we are going to need every electron we can get. We all know how much data centers in AI are going to demand.
To your point, yes, we're going to need solar, we're going to need wind, we're going to need nuclear and its baseload reliability. Yes, we're going to need it. We're going to need every available electron.
All of you understand how important this is. We cannot afford to lose this race to China. We cannot afford to lose the AI race to China. If we do, then God help us, and China's trying to do it.
Spector: Setting aside the current budget battle, are there any specific policies you would want to propose to ensure the U.S. can meet its electricity needs for AI and all the new factories? Are there any specific policies you'd like to pass once the budget discussions get taken care of?
Carter: Absolutely. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we're working on a number of different policies. I mentioned that I've signed three letters. The last letter was with [Rep.] Dan Newhouse on nuclear energy.
We had this tragedy in Fukushima, and I was able to go to Japan and see what happened there. Europe's kind of abandoned nuclear energy, but I think they're going back now. I know France, thank goodness, didn't abandon it; they're providing it for everyone. Nuclear is going to be a big part of it. We're going to need everything. I am encouraging my colleagues to look at everything.
Spector: I've been seeing in my reporting a lot of companies that used to talk a lot about climate, and nonprofits, NGOs, pulling back from using the word climate in today's Washington. You're still a leader of the Conservative Climate Caucus. So I wonder, can you get traction in President Trump's Washington, using that word climate? Does that generate some pushback from your colleagues? Or do you think it's important to keep using that language?
Carter: I know that some of you are not going to believe this, but Republicans are pro-environment. Being pro-growth and pro-environment are not mutually exclusive. You can be both, and we are both.
I have the honor and privilege of representing, as I said, the coast of Georgia. It's where I've lived all my life and where I intend to live the rest of my life. Some of my fondest memories growing up are going fishing with my dad. I want my sons, I want my grandchildren, to have that same opportunity to enjoy those memories.
I love the environment. I'm not going to ever do anything intentionally to hurt the environment. I tell you, environmentalists are tough — you can be with 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% of the time you're not with them, oh boy, they will persecute you.
My point is, it is important for us as Republicans to acknowledge, and I do believe. I believe in climate change. I believe that man has an impact on the climate and that we need to address it.
I believe that we should be looking toward cleaner energy and renewable energy. I do believe that. That's why I'm cochair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. That's why I work. That's why I signed those three letters. That's why I'm working diligently on this. I want us to do that, but at the same time, we've got to be careful not to cut our nose off in spite of our face. It needs to be an approach that is sensible and logical.
Spector: Do you have any particular priorities regarding some sort of permitting reform or grid interconnection reform? Any dream goals you'd want to work on in the next session?
Carter: You know, I don't care what sector of our economy you're talking about, whether you're talking about health care, whether you're talking about communications technology, or whether you're talking about energy. When people and companies come into my office, it is always the same — permitting regulations, crushing us. And that's what we've got to address.
I'll give you an example. I think this is relevant. As I said, I represent the city of Savannah. The Savannah Harbor expansion project, where we deepened our harbor from 42 feet to 47 feet in order to accommodate the bigger ships that are coming through — that project was finished in March of 2022.
The permitting — this is true — the permitting for that project started in 1996.
In that period of time, China has started and completed three new ports. The point I'm trying to make here: We can do a better job than this without endangering our environment, and we need to do a better job. It doesn't matter what part of our economy you're talking about, there are people coming to my office and saying permitting is killing us.
Spector: Is there any other message you'd like to leave our crowd with here? You know, on the future of clean energy in America?
Carter: Well, again, I'm proud of the state of Georgia. I'm proud of what we've done. We've been a pro-business state, and again, we've led in clean energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, all of it. I know some of y'all don't like biomass, but I happen to like it, and if you look at the entire cycle, I think you agree that biomass, too, is something we should be looking at. And as I mentioned before, we've got a lot of pine trees in Georgia, so biomass is really big too.
Spector: Congressman, thank you for being here at Canary Live. Let's give him a show of appreciation. Thank you and have a great rest of your week.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools

time27 minutes ago

Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools

A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'

Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit

San Francisco Chronicle​

time30 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'

Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes
Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes

Crime Gun violence US elections Election securityFacebookTweetLink Follow A failed political candidate was sentenced to 80 years in federal prison Wednesday for his convictions in a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in Albuquerque in the aftermath of the 2020 election. A jury convicted former Republican candidate Solomon Peña earlier this year of conspiracy, weapons and other charges in the shootings in December 2022 and January 2023 on the homes of four Democratic officials, including the current state House speaker. Prosecutors, who had sought a 90-year sentence, said Peña has shown no remorse and had hoped to cause political change by terrorizing people who held contrary views to him into being too afraid to take part in political life. Peña's lawyers had sought a five-year sentence, saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Peña was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency. 'Today was a necessary step toward Mr. Peña's continued fight to prove his innocence,' said Nicholas Hart, one of Peña's attorneys. 'He looks forward to the opportunity to appeal, where serious issues about the propriety of this prosecution will be addressed.' The attacks took place as threats and acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials surged across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors said Peña resorted to violence in the belief that a 'rigged' election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state Legislature. The shootings targeted the homes of officials including two county commissioners after their certification of the 2022 election, in which Peña lost by nearly 50 percentage points. No one was injured, but in one case bullets passed through the bedroom of a state senator's 10-year-old daughter. Two other men who had acknowledged helping Peña with the attacks had previously pleaded guilty to federal charges and received yearslong prison sentences.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store