logo
Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis have different approaches to green energy tax credits

Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis have different approaches to green energy tax credits

Yahoo25-04-2025

This article was first published in the On the Trail newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Friday mornings here.
Hello, friends. It's White House Correspondents Week, which means Washington is buzzing with activity from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.
The annual dinner will be held on Saturday evening, although it will look different from years past, as there won't be a headlining comedian — and President Donald Trump has decided not to attend! But the week has still been packed with galas and dinner parties, with celebrity guests expected to appear at different points this weekend. I'll be attending some events, and can give you a behind-the-scenes peek on Monday!
And don't forget! We are renaming the newsletter to On The Hill starting next week! Reminder: All content will remain the same, but keep an eye out for the change next Friday.
Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis have different approaches to green energy tax credits
Republicans will begin drafting their massive tax reconciliation bill next week, and they have a long road ahead of them. The House hopes to get their version finalized and passed before they leave for Memorial Day recess, but that's an ambitious timeline with several obstacles that could delay the process.
More on those obstacles here. But for today's edition, let's dive into one of biggest crossroads emerging in the reconciliation package — but one that hasn't been dragged into the spotlight.
Green energy tax credits
As I've previously reported, some Republicans are adamant that they will repeal President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. And not just part of it — they want to overturn its components 'lock, stock, and barrel,' Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells me.
'I would rather see us pull out all of the IRA subsidies,' Lee said. 'I think the minute you start trying to draw perimeter lines around certain projects, it's going to be very difficult to contain the damage.'
But some Republicans are urging more caution. Take Lee's counterpart, Sen. John Curtis, for example. The junior Utah senator recently signed on to a letter warning against a full repeal of Biden's signature climate bill, warning it could lead to 'significant disruptions' and weaken the United States on the global stage.
Conversations on the topic are ongoing, Lee told me. But the Utah senator is expected to play a big role as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
But what would a repeal of some of those tax credits look like?
The IRA creates significant tax credits for renewable energy projects such as solar, wind and geothermal. These Investment Tax Credits incentivize households and businesses to install renewable energy systems by allowing them to deduct a percentage of the cost from federal taxes.
That's a big deal for states in the Western U.S. such as Arizona and California that have some of the best conditions for solar power and have some of the highest rates of usage. Utah has also seen growing usage, according to a story last year by Reuters.
By installing solar panels, homes and businesses can 'produce some of your energy on your rooftop and reduce the cost' of utility bills, Kate Bowman from Vote Solar, a clean-energy advocacy group, tells me.
'Regardless of the decision to install solar, families' utility bills are going up and investing in rooftop solar is a way to help bring those utility bills back down and then also have some more predictability about what your utility costs are going to be in the future so that you're not as vulnerable to price increases,' Bowman told me.
The average household in Utah can save about $90 a month on electric bills with a switch to solar energy, according to Bowman.
In response to GOP senators, including Curtis, advocating for green energy credits: 'I think it really shows that he recognizes that this is a moment … to invest in communities, to make sure that we stay on the forefront as our energy system evolves, and that we are giving families the tools to take control of their own energy resources.'
However, if there is uncertainty about the future of the tax credits, it could discourage people from switching to solar power altogether, other experts tell me.
Take, for example, what Glen Brand, vice president of policy and advocacy for Solar United Neighbors said: 'It's not about the larger political battles. It's about these practical benefits. And we think that's very convincing, and also grounding, because that's, after all, what the whole purpose of this is: to help people save money and then reinvest that money in the economy.'
But, Republican lawmakers are looking for ways to save money to get to the $1.5 trillion in cuts promised in the reconciliation bill. That could put the credits on the chopping block.
So stay tuned. I'll be following this issue over the next several weeks.
Deportation mayhem: The saga of the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador has become a political flashpoint, which continued to heat up this week after four House Democrats traveled to the country to advocate for his release. Republicans are accusing Democrats of being anti-American while Democrats claim the Trump administration is ignoring due process and judicial orders that run contrary to the president's agenda.
Pope memorials: Pope Francis died this week, resulting in an outpouring of love and admiration for the Catholic leader. His death came just hours after meeting with Vice President JD Vance, who said it was 'pretty crazy' that he was among the last few officials to see the pope before he passed.
2026 Senate watch: Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat from Illinois, announced he wouldn't run for reelection next year, setting the stage for a rare Democratic primary to replace him. He's the fifth senator to retire so far this year and the fourth Democrat to hang up his hat.
While GOP leaders schedule markups for the tax reconciliation bill, there's a number of other bills up for consideration this week on the House floor.
A main theme: Repealing a slew of clean energy policies passed under the Biden EPA.
At least three bills set to come to the floor this week are Congressional Review Act resolutions, which are special legislative tools used to overturn federal regulations. The ones on deck this week appear to target three electric vehicle-related laws.
Here's a brief overview of what each resolution would do:
HJR87: Would nullify a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 allowing California to force truck manufacturers to sell zero-emission trucks. In doing so, it would maintain uniform vehicle emission regulations nationwide.
HJR88: Overturns a waiver from the EPA allowing California to implement its 'Advanced Clean Cars II' program. That program would aim for 'all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in California' to be zero emissions by 2035.
HJR89: Repeals another EPA waiver allowing California to enforce a law establishing stringent nitrogen oxide emission standards.
From the Hill: Congress explores limiting cellphones in classrooms as states like Utah issue bans. … The challenges Republicans still face as they tackle Trump's tax bill.
From the White House: Trump orders flags to half-staff to honor Pope Francis. … DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's bag stolen at D.C. restaurant with security badge inside. … Trump administration releases first plans to downsize the State Department. … Vance says U.S. will 'walk away' if Ukraine and Russia don't agree to peace proposal.
From the courts: Judge resigns after immigrant with alleged criminal connections arrested at his home. … Judge strikes down Utah's school choice program. … What the Supreme Court said about LGBTQ rights and a children's book on same-sex marriage.
The House and Senate are back next week — and they'll be busy.
It'll be a four-week sprint to draft and pass Trump's massive reconciliation bill in the House before they break for Memorial Day recess. Remember: This process could hit some snags, and it won't be a surprise if that target date gets moved farther into the summer.
Also next week: The Treasury is expected to announce its long-awaited X-date. Or in other words, the day the country is projected to default on its loans unless Congress raises the debt limit. Stay tuned for more on that.
As always, feel free to reach out to me by email with story ideas or questions you have for lawmakers. And follow me on X for breaking news and timely developments from the Hill.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?

Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio

Secret Service Followed Protocol in Padilla Incident
Secret Service Followed Protocol in Padilla Incident

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Secret Service Followed Protocol in Padilla Incident

California Sen. Alex Padilla is getting plenty of mileage out of his scuffle with the Secret Service and federal authorities in Los Angeles Thursday. Padillas Senate and campaign accounts posted a total of seven outraged videos in the first 24 hours after the altercation. Viral videos of the incident show a Secret Service agent dragging a fuming Padilla out of a press conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and he identifies himself as a senator only as hes being pushed out the door. The agent then forces Padilla to the ground, while two agents handcuff him. Padilla, however, wasnt arrested. Within the hour, agents released him with no charges. Dozens of Democratic members of Congress then jumped to Padillas defense, denouncing the action while casting the Secret Service and FBI agents involved as an extension of what they labeled as President Trumps totalitarian police state. Sen. Schumer called the Secret Services use of force "cruel and unacceptable." "This was a deliberate attempt to intimidate an elected official whose only offense is standing up for the voiceless," Schumer said. "But its not just about Sen. Padilla, its about every person who dares to speak truth to power." Republicans and conservative commentators countered that it was all a big publicity stunt and noted that a Padilla staffer filmed the tussle and then quickly distributed it to the media in the room. "Sen. Padilla didnt want answers - he wanted airtime," Rep. Byron Donalds said on Fox News Thursday night. "Shoving past security for a viral moment is a stunt, not leadership. If he cared about solutions, hed have asked for a meeting. But like most Democrats, he just wants the spotlight." "Alex Padilla is an embarrassment to California," said Steve Hilton, who is running for governor in California as a Republican. "Hes a complete nonentity. Thats why they didnt recognize him … [he has] zero accomplishments and now this pathetic stunt as his only claim to fame." Yet, one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, an ardent Trump critic, condemned Padillas treatment as "shocking at every level" and "not the America I know." Secret Service experts argue nothing could be further from the truth - that the agent was simply following normal protocol. Padilla, they said, actually received preferential treatment by not being arrested and jailed for his menacing display. The Secret Service agent warned Padilla, whom agents did not recognize as a senator and who wasnt wearing his Senate pin, to back away from Noem and then forcibly removed him when he ignored their entreaties. "They can represent this however they want, but those agents made the right decision to get him out of the room," Charles Marino, a former Secret Service agent told RealClearPolitics. "He did not have a congressional pin on, he was yelling and closing distance very quickly to make it to the front of the room to confront Noem." "Look, hes not above the law. Anyone taking those actions would been treated far worse - they would have been arrested and been forced to spend some time in jail," Marino said. "Who was escalating the situation? When you look at Padillas action, taken in totality, the agents had no other choice." Instead of dragging him to a cell, federal agents released the senator after the incident. Then Noem met with Padilla for 15 minutes and gave him her cell phone number to discuss matters further. "We probably disagree on 90% of the topics, but we agreed to exchange phone numbers and continue to talk - that is the way it should be in this country," Noem told Fox News Thursday afternoon. The Homeland Security Department issued a statement Thursday defending the federal agents actions, arguing that Padilla chose "disrespectful political theater" over constructive congressional oversight. Padilla, the agency said, "interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem." "Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers repeated commands," the department added. "@Secret Service thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately." Several other Secret Service sources backed up Marinos account. "Any sudden movement towards a protectee that feels threatening, especially when that person has not been identified, the policy is 100% to prevent further escalation or movement toward Noem," said a source in the Secret Service community. "We would have done the same thing for anyone threatening [former DHS Secretary] Mayorkas." Even though the situation escalated very quickly, the agent still followed the basic rules of engagement for law enforcement, the source asserted. Agents and officers first ask a person to move away from the protectee, then they tell them firmly to move away, and if those warnings arent abided, then they can use physical force to move the threatening person away. "Its a pretty common law enforcement way of relaying information and taking action, because emotions can get the best of people, and agents are forced to err on the side of protection," the source added. After the two assassination attempts against Trump, agents are highly attuned to aggressive behavior and working to ensure theyre not involved in any security lapses. "In this day and age, you can see what a split-second hesitate could result in," one former agent remarked. "Could you imagine if the agent didnt respond, and Padilla got on the stage and hit [Noem]?" The agency has been knocked around for months for the egregious security failures in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13 and then nearly two months later during another close call against Trump at his West Palm Beach golf course. And just because its Padilla who was attending a press conference doesnt mean assaults against a Cabinet secretary or president are unlikely to occur. During a December 2008 press conference in Iraq, an Iraqi journalist threw both of his shoes at former President George W. Bush in a pique of outrage. Secret Service agents with their zero-fail mission have to be poised to respond to all types of unexpected threats, which sometimes come with no warning at all. Back in 2005, during Bushs visit to the country of Georgia, a man attempted to assassinate Bush and then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili by throwing a hand grenade at both of them. "Listen, we dont always know who you are if youre not wearing your [congressional] pin," the source said. "Youre coming at [Noem] in an aggressive manner, and you didnt heed our warnings to stop. If you get into the buffer zone, we have to take you down. All public officials should know, and I would hope understand, that." Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Americans weigh in on Trump's deployment of troops to quell Los Angeles unrest
Americans weigh in on Trump's deployment of troops to quell Los Angeles unrest

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Americans weigh in on Trump's deployment of troops to quell Los Angeles unrest

A new national poll indicates that Americans are divided over President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the nation's second most populous city. Aiming to extinguish escalating protests in Los Angeles sparked by immigration raids carried out by ICE at his administration's direction, Trump sent in National Guard troops and even mobilized Marines. The unrest and the moves by the president have dominated national headlines for a week. Forty-one percent of adults nationwide questioned in a Washington Post/George Mason University Schar School poll said they support the president's move, with 44% opposed and 15% unsure. The survey was conducted on Tuesday and questioned over 1,000 adults nationwide, including roughly 200 in blue-state California. First On Fox: Immigrant Voters Abandon Democrats On Immigration Issue Support for the president's actions among the California respondents stood at 32%, with 58% opposed. Read On The Fox News App The poll also highlighted an expected massive partisan divide. Click Here For The Latest Fox News Polling Eight-six percent of Republicans surveyed supported the president's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to the streets of LA, with more than three-quarters of Democrats giving a thumbs down on Trump's move. A third of independents approved of the sending of the troops, with nearly half opposed and nearly one in five unsure. Trump took control of California's National Guard without the permission of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the first time in 60 years that a president has federalized National Guard troops without a governor's request. Newsom, leading the resistance to Trump's moves, took legal action to try and reverse the order. Trump Deployment Of Troops To Quell La Rioters Latest Page In President's Political Playbook A federal district court judge this week ruled that Trump's moves were illegal and ordered him to return control of the National Guard troops to Newsom. But a federal appeals court quickly temporarily blocked the lower court judge's ruling. The survey also indicates Americans are divided over whether they support (39%) or oppose (40%) the protests. Just over one in five (21%) were unsure of their support or opposition. Seventy percent of Democrats — but just 39% of independents and only 6% of Republicans — support the aims of the protesters. According to the poll, Americans are also divided over whether the protests have been mostly peaceful (35%) or mostly violent (37%).Original article source: Americans weigh in on Trump's deployment of troops to quell Los Angeles unrest

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