Victory for energy freedom: the House (finally) limits IRA subsidies Image By Alex Epstein Earlier this month, Republicans were planning to keep the vast majority of the trillion-dollar IRA subsidies, including grid-destroying solar and wind subsidies. (I sounded the alarm here.) Fortunately, the final bill fixed the worst problems by placing strict limits on new solar and wind subsidies. Americans owe a debt of gratitude to a handful of energy freedom fighters, including U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), who fought hard for the necessary changes, saving us literally hundreds of billions of dollars — and saving our grid. We should also be grateful that Republican leadership and the White House saw the wisdom of these changes and got them included in the final bill. Next steps There is still a lot of work to be done. As the bill heads to the Senate, the lobbying complex continues to mislead elected officials, influencers and the public into thinking that the House subsidy cuts go “too far” and the Senate must “moderate” them. In fact, these subsidy cuts did not go far enough. The Senate can and should cut more subsidies and do so in a way that saves hundreds of billions of dollars, strengthens our grid and helps bring about a nuclear renaissance. One of the absurdities being peddled by the subsidy lobby and repeated by gullible commentators is that the subsidy status quo benefited nuclear, when in fact the subsidy status quo helped destroyed the economics of nuclear by causing electricity markets to overinvest in unreliable generation and underinvest in reliable generation. I was honored to play a role in educating House members about energy truth and energy freedom, in the face of endless misleading and self-serving statements by various special interest lobbyists. Now I will do everything in my power to educate the Senate about the opportunity America has to build on the House’s good work and terminate the Green New Scam once and for all. In focus Here’s the most effective thing the Senate can do: Cut more IRA subsidies and promote nuclear innovation. The House did a good job stopping massive new subsidies for solar and wind projects. The Senate can save even more money and help nuclear with one simple change: limit subsidies to include only reliable sources of energy. I'm against all energy subsidies. I believe the key to truly promising energy alternatives is eliminating irrational restrictions. However, given leaders' unwillingness to fully terminate the IRA I feel obligated to offer the best compromise to reduce cost and help our grid. The House reconciliation bill’s achievement was preventing massive, grid-destroying subsidies for new solar and wind projects. But some Senators are concerned that because nuclear shares subsidies with solar/wind, cutting those subsidies also hurts nuclear (and geothermal). The simple solution to nuclear's subsidies being entangled with solar and wind's is to disentangle them. The simplest way to do this is: limit “clean electricity” subsidies to include only reliable, "dispatchable" sources like nuclear and geothermal, excluding unreliable solar/wind. A "dispatchable" source of energy is one that can provide energy on-demand: when needed, in the quantity needed. Nuclear, geothermal, and hydro qualify. Intermittent solar/wind should be able to qualify if coupled with truly significant storage — e.g., 24 hours' worth. The benefits Benefit 1 of limiting subsidies to dispatchable sources: Nuclear projects will not only stay funded, their economics will dramatically improve in the absence of solar/wind subsidies — since these subsidies manipulate electricity markets to defund reliable sources like nuclear. Benefit 2 of limiting subsidies to dispatchable sources: If the requirement applies to all existing solar/wind projects, as it should, we will save hundreds of billions of dollars and help our grid and nuclear even more. Alex Epstein is a philosopher and energy expert bringing clarity to energy, environmental, and climate issues. He has authored Fossil Future and the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. *The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of EnergyPlatform.News.
