Today’s Q&A is with Frank Maisano, one of the most sought-after energy lobbyists in Washington. Maisano, a Beltway veteran who has worked in Congress as well, has a long history with me that goes back to the earliest days of my environmental reporting career. So when I helped author a story for Heatmap this week about the budget risks to the Inflation Reduction Act, he reached out and asked if he could give me his take: that our reporting missed the mark.
Naturally, I asked if I could publish the whole thing in my newsletter, because what good is a lobbyist’s words if they aren’t written down? The following is an abridged version of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
Frank, once again, thanks for taking the time to reach out and tell us why we’re wrong. Let’s start with my burning question: tell me why?
Well I don’t know that everything you wrote about is wrong, but I think historical perspective is important here. Unfortunately when you’re as old as I am, and have been involved in this game as long as I have, you know from things that happened before that everything is not new again.
When I worked on the Appropriations Committee in 1994, 1995 and Republicans took over with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, many of these types of budget-cutting plans were in place. At the time, Republicans didn’t have total control because Clinton was president, but Project 2025 isn’t just Project 2025. It was Project 2005. It was Project 1985. The Heritage Foundation has been making these proposals every year for the 40 years I’ve been around. I’d just want to remind people of the operational historical context for how Congress works and how folks have been trying to do this for years.
I was talking to somebody the other day and I said, Talk to me in December of this year. Because in December of this year, a lot of this hyperbolic symbolism and walking people out of agencies — all of this will be over. Congress will have spoken and we’ll have a better sense of the true direction they’re going in.
I’m not going to say there won’t be significant cuts. I suspect there will be reductions in government spending. But it’s certainly not going to be as harried, frantic, and news-splashed as we’re seeing now.
Do you actually think these Republicans who signed onto a letter defending the Inflation Reduction Act will stand by these statements when a final bill comes for a vote?
Are you asking if the 21 will stand by the statements?
Yeah, I mean, the point of our story was to say the budget math matters more than that and there’ll be a choice between tax cuts and saving more of the IRA.
Like I said, when we went through this in 1994, you would think the budget math mattered more, but it never does. Once people start lobbying and start advocating for their own constituencies, local projects, I think you’re going to see a significant trimming of the attitude.
There’s a few people who, budget be damned, will be in the ‘let’s cut everything’ book. I don’t think that’s a majority of the [Republican] caucus, though, especially when you look at provisions of the IRA. There are many provisions of the IRA that are how Republicans have done energy policy for years. There were provisions in the bipartisan infrastructure law that were how Republicans have done energy policy for years.
Has every Republican supported it? No. Are there certain loud voices on the budget hawk side? Absolutely. Do either of those sides have a full measure of support that’s going to pull someone like a tug of war over to the other side? Most likely not. There’s going to have to be an internal party agreement but also an internal congressional agreement which I think will tend to pull this budget hawk-ness further away from the absolute spending cuts they want to impose.
Do you think the administration’s views on wind, solar, or battery storage deployment will matter when it comes to the fate of the IRA?
They may have a specific view. But a lot of it is out of their hands. The market has made decisions already. Utilities, investor-owned, even rural co-op utilities have made decisions already in balancing their generation sources.
I don’t think any sort of administration policy to X one off or close it out is probably that viable. Especially in the sense where we need all the energy we can get.
Demand takes control of the policy levers. We saw this with the Biden administration on oil and gas where they tried mightily to reduce our output, but then 2022 came around and they felt compelled to push more development and then we had record development under the Biden administration.
I think we’re going to see similar energy trends in this administration with the policy levers the administration is less interested in. Let me give you an example: I think offshore wind is going to still be able to play a role in meeting that energy demand. Look at what’s happening in the Northeast, and in Virginia, where they have incredible energy demand projections. Offshore wind along with natural gas along with some nuclear are [together] going to play a role in how we meet that demand in the future. Even if the administration pushes back on offshore wind, [Republican Virginia Gov.] Glenn Youngkin sees it as a part of his mix and that is a powerful force. I see that offsetting some of the policy push preferences this administration might have.
I know in the ‘90s you were involved in navigating this, but I’m still wondering after all this if the budget math we brought up in our story and parliamentary procedure will matter…
It certainly does matter and it’s certainly one way to look at it. But Congress has a way of coming to a deal.
