Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

House Republicans Plan Big Cuts to the IRA’s Clean Energy Grants

The Energy and Commerce Committee dropped its budget proposal Sunday night.

•
The Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Republicans on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce unveiled their draft budget proposal Sunday night, which features widespread cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and other clean energy and environment programs.

The legislative language is part of the House’s reconciliation package, an emerging tax and spending bill that will seek to extend much of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with reduced spending on the IRA and Medicaid helping to balance the budgetary scales.

The Energy and Commerce committee covers energy and environmental programs, while the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over the core tax credits of the IRA that power much of America’s non-carbon power generation. Ways and Means has yet to release its draft budget proposal, which will be another major shoe to drop.

The core way the Energy and Commerce proposal generates budgetary savings is by proposing “rescissions” to existing programs, whereby unspent money would be yanked away.

The language also includes provisions to auction electromagnetic spectrum, as well as changes to Medicaid. Overall, the Congressional Budget Office told the committee, the recommendations would “reduce deficits by more than $880 billion” from 2025 to 2034, which was the target the committee was instructed to hit. The Sierra Club estimated that the cuts specifically to programs designed to help decarbonize heavy industry would add up to $1.6 billion.

The proposed rescissions would affect a number of energy financing and grant programs, including:

  • The Loan Programs Office, which would have its IRA-specific funding pulled, vastly reducing its overall ability to lend. Committee Republicans said this funding helped support “unproven technologies.” In a post on X, Thomas Hochman, the director of infrastructure policy for the Foundation for American Innovation, called the proposal a move to “effectively eliminate the Loan Programs Office.” The IRA boosted the LPO’s lending authority to around $400 billion, from $40 billion under the first Trump administration (when the office was effectively dormant) and included increased direct appropriations that subsidized the cost of the loans.
  • Programs to finance zero-emissions vehicle manufacturing (a.k.a. Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grants), repowering or retooling energy infrastructure to lower emissions (Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing), loan guarantees for Native American tribes, and loans to build transmission lines. Some of these programs — for instance, the repowering or retooling loans — had already made final commitments to help finance projects, such as $15 billion in loan guarantees for California utility PG&E, plus a number of mining and battery projects funded under the vehicle program, and so may not offer much in the way of budgetary savings. Other programs, however, such as the transmission financing program, had disbursed little if any money.
  • Grant programs to help implement clean energy policies. These programs include grants for training and education for the IRA’s home energy programs, grants for siting transmission lines, and grants for planning offshore wind and its associated transmission.
  • Money for clean industrial projects. The Advanced Industrial Facilities Deployment Program was designed to support projects that reduced emissions from industry. The Energy and Commerce language would rescind any unobligated funds from this program. The Department of Energy had funded a number of projects to reduce emissions in heavy industries like cement, concrete, and aluminum.
  • Permitting fees: Similar to language put out by the Committee on Natural Resources, the Energy and Commerce language includes provisions that allows energy infrastructure developers to pay upfront fees to get expedited permitting and to limit judicial review. The fee programs specifically target natural gas and pipeline projects (including carbon dioxide and hydrogen), also include a provision that allows liquified natural gas developers to pay a $1 million fee to get a project declared in the “public interest.”
  • Hundreds of millions of dollars of non-IRA rescissions for DOE programs and offices, including the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and State and Community Energy Programs. These cuts would add up to about $844 million, with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations alone counting for $60 million. The largest cut would be to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, with just over $400 million in rescissions.

And that’s just the “energy” cuts. The language also includes a number of cuts to environmental programs, including:

  • “Unobligated” money from Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, although exactly what’s obligated and what’s not has been a matter of major controversy in the early months of the Trump administration. Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin and various Justice Department officials have tried to claw back the grants, which were designed to help establish community-based clean energy funding programs, colloquially known as green banks.
  • A grab bag of air pollution programs, including grants to address air pollution at ports, diesel emissions, air pollution monitoring, air pollution at schools, and grants for purchasing electric heavy-duty vehicles.
  • Climate-specific programs such as funding for labeling low-carbon construction materials, funding to help build standards for corporate emissions reporting, funding for state, local, and tribal governments to draw up Climate Change Action Plans (which the committee calls a “slush fund”), and funding for environmental justice programs.

Lastly, the proposal would also repeal federal tailpipe emission standards starting in the 2027 model year. These rules, which were finalized just last year, would have provided a major boost to the electric vehicle industry, perhaps pushing EV sales to over half of all new car sales by the beginning of the next decade. The language also repeals the latest gas-mileage standards, which were released last year and would have applied to the 2027 through 2031 model years, eventually bumping up miles-per-gallon industry-wide to over 50 by the 2031 model year.

Yellow
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
A data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a fascinating story today about Net Power, an energy and power development company whose technology once seemed key to decarbonizing the country’s electricity grid.

Keep reading...Show less
Energy

Net Power Surrendered Its Clean Dreams to Data Center Demand

The zero-emission pioneer is doing the dirty work for the AI boom.

A gas plant and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

All kinds of companies have refashioned themselves to exploit the AI boom. A bitcoin miner became a data center developer, a shoemaker is building GPUs, and an electric vehicle company is integrating its powertrains into server racks.

Now, a company that once aspired to build one of the lowest-emitting power plants has pivoted to building one of the dirtiest in order to meet data centers’ requirement for speed to power above all. Net Power was founded to pioneer a new form of natural gas power plant with zero emissions, but it has given up on that technology and recently acquired 10 natural gas reciprocating engines that it plans to co-locate with a data center on the site intended for its first commercial plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

The Surprisingly Exciting Race to Be California’s Next Insurance Commissioner

Ben Allen wants to reform the existing market. Jane Kim wants a revolution.

California Insurance Commissioner candidates.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Ben Allen, Jane Kim

From Crescent City to Coronado, California voters are facing decisions on a down-ballot strewn with over a dozen propositions and a series of statewide Democrat-versus-Republican races with mostly foregone conclusions.

And then there’s the insurance commissioner.

In the race to oversee California’s insurance market, a $452 billion-in-premium-volume monster imperiled by insurer defections and disaster risks, Democratic State Senator Ben Allen, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, is facing off against Jane Kim, a progressive former San Francisco supervisor.

Kim has the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — it’s the first thing you see about her when you Google her campaign. She previously served as his California political director during the 2020 presidential race, and she appeared earlier this month at an event with the senator in support of the state’s proposed billionaire wealth tax.

Allen, by contrast, won the endorsement of the state’s Democratic Party and its two incumbent senators.

There has been little public polling of the race, but one September survey showed Kim leading Allen 25% to 18%, with more than half the electorate undecided.

“My opponent and I are not even running for the same office,” Kim told me. “He’s running for what this office used to be, and I’m running for what this office could be.”

Allen wasn’t worried about Kim’s characterization in my interview with him, telling me, “I want to fix the market that we have and make it work. My opponent wants to build a new state insurer that nobody has priced.”

Keep reading...Show less