By Brad Plumer | New York Times
The giant policy bill muscled through Congress by Republicans is poised to remake American energy by slashing tax breaks for wind and solar power and electric cars while maintaining some federal support for sources like nuclear reactors and geothermal plants.
The legislation, which carries President Trump’s domestic policy agenda, provides a boost to fossil fuels and dismantles many of the biggest actions the federal government has ever taken to fight climate change, even as scientists warn that rising temperatures are creating acute dangers from extreme heat, deadly wildfires, crop failures and floods.
Yet there is still uncertainty about how changes from the bill will play out.
Solar farms could still get built even without federal subsidies, though they could be more expensive and more likely to use components made in China than in the United States. Other industries that get favorable treatment, like technology that captures carbon dioxide, could nevertheless struggle.
Court Rich, Rose Law Group’s director of renewable energy & utility infrastructure and the firm’s co-founder, tells RLGR:
“This bill is the poster child for why government should not be picking winners and losers in the energy business. Companies plan energy investments years and even decades in advance and inconsistent government policy creates uncertainty and drives up costs for consumers, With our country’s unprecedented and surging energy demands, it is the exact wrong time to blow up well-established market structures that will further drive up the cost of power,” Rich says.
“The majority of the clean energy tax credits that were wiped out in this bill were supported by both parties on multiple occasions for more than a decade but nevertheless, they were washed away without notice destroying investment plans and expectations. Doing away with clean energy tax credits is one thing, but then counterbalancing that by implementing numerous new tax credits for competing energy sources shows the government is just continuing to stick its nose into a business that would be better served by all parties going subsidy free.”
