You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Much may depend on the Senate’s tolerance for fuzzy math.

House Republicans passed a budget blueprint Thursday morning that lays the groundwork for the party to begin drafting legislation to enact President Trump’s agenda. Now the fight over the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits begins in earnest.
The blueprint is merely a set of instructions for writing the eventual budget bill, laying out topline numbers for tax cuts and spending reductions — it doesn’t contain any actual policies. Trump’s biggest priorities are to extend the tax cuts he enacted in 2017, pass new tax cuts on tips and overtime pay, and to boost spending on immigration control and defense.
The resolution that Republicans passed allows for all of the above. In total, it enables Congress to craft a bill that would increase the national debt over the next decade by more than $5 trillion.
The good news for the IRA tax credits is that the framework only requires lawmakers to craft legislation that would produce $4 billion in savings — a relatively small amount that doesn't exert much pressure on cutting the tax credits. The bad news is that Senate Republicans have given their word to budget hawks in the House that they will aim to cut much more than that — at least $1.5 trillion in spending. House Republicans, for their part, are eager to do at least $2 trillion in deficit reductions.
According to a “menu” of budget proposals that made its way around the Hill earlier this year, Republicans estimate they could save anywhere from $3 billion to $800 billion by repealing IRA tax credits, depending on how many and which ones are cut.
Lawmakers could also go after other climate-related policies, like cutting grant programs from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. “Most of the funds have been obligated,” meaning they’re legally committed to grantees, “so there’s not much left to rescind,” Alex McDonough, a lobbyist with Pioneer Public Affairs, told me in an email. “We’ll see what they do with a possible rescission package, but even that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions they want for offsetting tax cuts.”
Lobbyists on Capitol Hill and other experts I’ve spoken with over the past two weeks disagree about how much the numbers matter when it comes to whether and how much of the IRA will be repealed. Some felt the budget math would take priority, while others told me that if any of the tax credits were killed or saved, it would be for political reasons over anything else.
Though the biggest political target seems to be the electric vehicle tax credits, “anything with a price tag is at least somewhat vulnerable,” McDonough said. Lawmakers could also opt to make certain credits more difficult to access or phase them out earlier rather than fully repeal them.
McDonough also said the lobbying that companies and trade groups have been doing around the manufacturing and clean electricity tax credits appeared to be working, and will ratchet up even more in May. “Appealing to ‘all of the above’ and ‘energy dominance’ is working because everyone knows how badly we need new generation to meet rapidly rising demand and a lot of the clean energy resources happen to be the quickest to deploy,” he said. “Utilities want it too, which is also very important.”
On Thursday, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Curtis of Utah sent a letter to their party’s leadership asking them to preserve tax credits that spur manufacturing, reduce energy costs for consumers, and give certainty to businesses that have already made investments in the U.S. based on the credits. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Jerry Moran of Kansas also signed the letter. It was the first major show of support for the tax credits in the Senate, following a similar letter signed by 21 Republicans in the House.
Republicans are trying to enact Trump’s agenda using a special process called budget reconciliation, which will enable them to pass it with a simple 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. The party currently has 53 seats, so four Republicans coming out in favor of preserving IRA tax credits is a good sign for the law. Similarly, the Republicans have a seven-seat majority in the House, and so those 21 who like the IRA could have quite a bit of influence.
But the other big open question for the future of the IRA — and frankly, for the future of the Senate — is whether Republicans will proceed with the fuzzy math they are using to calculate the cost of the bill. When the Congressional Budget Office scores the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, it will use what's called a "current law baseline," and estimate that they will cost the government more than $3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Senate Republicans, however, have asserted that extending the 2017 tax cuts is free and will have no impact on the deficit, using a different scoring method called a “current policy baseline.”
The reason this matters for the IRA is that the budget reconciliation process has strict rules. If lawmakers were forced to recognize the true cost of the tax cut extensions in drafting the budget bill, they would have to make several trillion dollars’ worth of additional spending cuts in order to align with the blueprint they passed this week. In that scenario, it’s hard to see how any of the IRA could survive.
But if Republicans unify around this fuzzy math and carry it all the way to the final vote on the bill, which would be unprecedented, they could face a showdown with Democrats, who will say the bill doesn’t comply with the reconciliation rules. In that scenario, they’ll be faced with a choice either to go back to the drawing board or take the nuclear option — essentially changing how the Senate operates.
“There will be a majority vote on whether the Senate wants to change its precedents going forward, forever, and basically open up reconciliation to whatever policies the majority wants to enact going forward,” Charlie Ellsworth, another lobbyist for Pioneer Public Affairs, told me.
Expect to hear a lot more about this debate over the cost of the tax cuts once lawmakers return to Washington on April 28 after a two-week recess. Republicans have said they want to get the budget bill to Trump’s desk by Memorial Day. McDonough doesn’t think that’s in the cards, and expects it to happen by the August recess at best. But he expects the House Ways and Means committee to push out a first version of the bill in May, so we’ll see what the first proposal is for the fate of the IRA tax credits then.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: A sleepy Atlantic hurricane season just snapped to attention as two tropical storms started forming near the Caribbean and off Africa’s coast • Southern California is bracing for a week of triple-digit temperatures • The Hawk Fire has forced 42,000 people to evacuate an area near Reno, Nevada.

The United States nearly doubled its pipeline of gas-fired power plant projects in the first half of this year, “but uncertainty persists about how and when this capacity gets built,” the watchdog Global Energy Monitor concluded in a new analysis. The country now has 189 gigawatts of planned gas projects, accounting for one-third of the global total. Completing all the plants would cost more than $647 billion. The U.S. is taking unique approaches to expanding its gas fleet, including building what would be the largest power station in the country as a federally-owned gas plant. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo points out, however, there’s a big asterisk on these numbers: Many of the projects are still in nascent stages of development and may never be built. “When I went through the group’s data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is,” she says in her write-up of the report, which I highly recommend checking out.
Electric cooperatives, meanwhile, are lobbying to make building more gas plants even easier. Last week, Utility Dive reported, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association urged the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt more gas plants from emissions rules.
Last month, a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research made the case that “the glass is half full” on federal green spending, finding that President Donald Trump’s landmark tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, preserved 74% of the clean energy gains from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. (You should listen to my colleague Robinson Meyer’s podcast conversation with the author, Lily Bermel, from last month.) Now the Natural Resources Defense Council has come out with the bearish counterargument. The environmental group’s new analysis, out this morning, found that the U.S. will lose between 390 gigawatts and 540 gigawatts of new solar, wind, and battery projects that would have been built before OBBBA’s passage.
“I see a glass much more than half empty,” Amanda Levin, the director of policy analysis at the NRDC, wrote in an op-ed for Heatmap. “The repeal of the key IRA tax credits and other Trump administration policies will result in 637 fewer gigawatts in added clean energy over the next 15 years and cost the average American household $4,500.”
One popular theory of Trump’s motivation for joining Israel in launching a war against Iran is that halting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would demonstrate China’s vulnerability as a top importer of foreign fossil fuels and America’s strength as the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas. But China’s actual response proved to be robust. In addition to ramping up domestic production of its own limited reserves of fossil fuels, Beijing deployed more renewables and nuclear reactors, electrified things that once ran on oil or gas, and made real progress on fuels such as hydrogen and its derivatives. Between that and China’s own carbon-cutting goals, last year was likely the peak of the country’s demand for oil, according to the state oil company Sinopec. In an earnings call Monday in Hong Kong, Sinopec Chairman Hou Qijun said demand had already crested, two years earlier than the 2027 peak the company had previously forecast, according to Bloomberg. Keep in mind that only means oil demand is no longer growing. The Chinese economy isn’t exactly on a GLP-1 treatment for crude just yet. In fact, Reuters noted that, on the call, Sinopec said it was now eyeing Brazil and Africa as new sources of oil imports. That’s probably partly why, as I told you last week, American oil giants are setting sights on Africa.
In the meantime, the People’s Republic may finally be sorting out carbon capture and storage. Last week, GD Power’s Jinjie Company issued a tender for engineering design of its 4 million tons per year full-sized CCS project for coal power stations. The project, according to the China Hydrogen Bullet, “is described as the world’s first full-flue-gas carbon capture facility at a coal-fired power plant.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Nearly two weeks after a powerful storm took out power for roughly 800,000 households in one of America’s most important industrial clusters, as many as 30,000 in northwest Indiana remained without electricity this past weekend. “My people are being overlooked,” Myles Tolliver, a Gary councilman whose family decamped to Chicago while the power was out, told The New York Times. “Our families are sitting in the dark. We don’t need any more excuses. We need the lights on.” By Monday evening, more than 8,300 households and businesses remained disconnected from the grid, according to data on PowerOutage.us, a tracker website.
The worst outage in the U.S. as of Monday night was in Shelby County, in the southwesternmost corner of Tennessee, where storms knocked out the power for nearly 32,000 households and businesses. Behind that was Washoe County, on the western flank of Nevada, where the aforementioned Hawk Fire damaged power lines.
The Trump administration is working with the British startup Core Power to help build a fleet of nuclear-powered merchant vessels to loosen China’s tightening grip over commercial shipbuilding. In an interview Monday with the Financial Times, U.S. Maritime Administration chief Stephen Carmel announced a public-private partnership agreement with Core Power in a bid to speed up commercialization of nuclear propulsion for ships. “We are not going to beat China by being a cheaper version of China. They have mastered the art of being cheap,” Carmel said. “The way we win in all this is to change the terms of the competition to something that is more favourable to us. So, we don’t compete on trying to be cheap. We compete on technology … and nuclear technology is something we are really good at.”
Vietnam just took a big step toward building its nuclear power station. On Monday, NucNet reported that the fast-growing Southeast Asian nation’s parliament had approved plans for its first commercial nuclear plant, a two-reactor, 2.4-gigawatt plant built by Russia. Hanoi is looking beyond just atomic energy to supplement its surging demand for power. The municipal government in Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s largest metropolis, is reviewing a feasibility study into developing up to 6 gigawatts of offshore wind, according to offshoreWIND.biz.
The Trump administration fast-tracked a Rare Earth Resources’ plan for an open-pit mine in Wyoming to extract rare earth minerals. Even in a deep-red state that mines more coal than any other in the U.S., the project is getting pushback. “It was kind of hush-hush, in my opinion, as far as not much word about it around Sundance,” Sundance resident Justin Johnson told WyoFile. “All of a sudden, in July when it came to our attention, it’s like, ‘Holy cow. We got little time before the federal deadline to get our comments and concerns to the Forest Service … You would think there’d be a lot more time for the actual owners of public land — the citizens of the U.S. — to have a response to what’s going on.”
A new report from Global Energy Monitor shows how the scale of planned projects is driving the fossil fuel boom.
The race to build data centers is driving a natural gas boom in the U.S. power sector unlike any seen before. According to Global Energy Monitor, a group that tracks energy infrastructure around the world, the amount of natural gas generation proposed to power data centers in the U.S. doubled in just six months, from January to July.
In a report released Tuesday, the nonprofit said it counted 189 gigawatts of gas-fired capacity that has either been announced, entered the pre-construction phase, or come under construction, up from 97 gigawatts at the end of last year. That count includes plants proposed by utilities to meet demand from data centers, as well as off-grid projects that companies are building to power data centers directly.
And that’s not even the full scale of what’s in the pipeline. In total, taking into account additional planned natural gas-fired power plants that are not necessarily tied to data center projects, the U.S. has 378 gigawatts of generation capacity under development, the report found. For reference, the country had 512 gigawatts of natural gas generation capacity operating as of the end of last year.
While many of the projects included in the Global Energy Monitor's data are in early stages and may not materialize, the authors count 52 gigawatts that are already under construction. That’s a 76% increase compared to last year, according to the report, and double the amount under construction in China, making the U.S. the top builder of natural gas plants in the world.
The closest historical precedent to this was in the early 2000s, when the U.S. added more than 150 gigawatts of natural gas power plants in just four years. The key differences this time are the momentous size of the proposed plants and the fact that so many of them are foregoing electric grid connections. Most of the plants built during that earlier period also used a more efficient design known as combined cycle, which uses the waste heat from gas combustion to power additional steam turbines. Due to supply chain constraints, however, about a quarter of the planned natural gas plants related to data center development are installing combustion engines, which are dirtier and less fuel efficient but easier to come by.
“From a climate perspective, there is definitely a risk that it locks in emissions from these resources and creates long term demand for gas as a fuel,” Brendan Pierpont, the director of electricity at the nonprofit research firm Energy Innovation, told me. The projects also raise affordability concerns, he said, whether they are on the grid or not, as the increased demand for gas could raise gas prices for all users of the fuel.
Because so many of these projects are speculative, it’s difficult to get more specific about what it all means for U.S. electricity consumers, let alone emissions and climate change. Last week, Bloomberg News estimated that 126 gigawatts of planned natural gas projects tied to data centers would increase power sector emissions by at least 20% compared to 2025 levels were it all to be built. That estimate did not take into account the fact that the projects will be built amid other changes in the U.S. grid mix, however. More than 200 gigawatts of solar projects and nearly 30 gigawatts of onshore and offshore wind capacity spurred by the expiring clean energy tax credits are working their way through the development pipeline and could come online by around 2030. Battery energy storage is also surging.
Here’s another data point to consider: A recent report by the Rhodium Group modeled changes in U.S. emissions through 2040 and found that power sector emissions could decrease by 24% to 48% given current policy, energy, and technology trends. This is a significantly worse outcome than what the group found two years ago, when the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits were in effect; then, emissions from the power sector were set to decline by at least 42% by 2035, according to Rhodium modeling.
Both the new Rhodium report and the 2024 version take into account surging electricity demand driven by AI data centers, but neither considers the buildout of off-grid natural gas plants. Those would make the outlook “demonstrably worse” emissions-wise, Ben King, one of the authors, told me. The grid routes power when and where it’s needed, prioritizing the least-cost generation, King explained, whereas these off-grid plants will serve just one customer, whether it needs their full capacity or not.
It’s also important to take the Global Energy Monitor numbers with a grain of salt. Many of the projects haven’t even applied for permits, named a start year, or found an offtaker for the energy. Off-grid projects will need air and water permits from state governments, while on-grid projects may need additional approvals from utility regulators. Many will also need pipelines to deliver the gas, requiring additional approvals.
When I went through the data to try to identify the 10 biggest gas projects under development that are tied to data centers, it became clear how slippery the whole picture really is. As I looked up each project to verify the details, I found several that had upgraded or downgraded their advertised size multiple times since they were announced. Some were officially permitted for a smaller amount of generation but claimed they would eventually double or even triple that amount when the project is complete. Some were speculative to the point of not even having an advertised location.
Below I've compiled the 10 biggest projects according to their developers' stated aspirations. Many of the projects on the list do not yet have customers for their energy, while a number of megaprojects that didn’t make the cut do. For example, Chevron is building the Kilby power plant, a nearly 2.7-gigawatt off-grid natural gas plant in Texas, to serve a Microsoft data center. There are also large data center projects that didn't make the list because they are tied to more geographically distributed gas plants. Meta, for example, is working with the utility Entergy to bring more than 5-gigawatts of natural gas capacity online scattered across multiple sites in Louisiana to power its massive Hyperion project.
Still, viewed together, these projects provide a picture of what kind of progress the developers with the biggest natural gas plans are making so far.
Potential size: 11 gigawatts
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Developer: Fermi America
Grid connection: No
Customer: TensorWave, a cloud company, has agreed to buy 222 megawatts from the site.
Fermi has obtained state air permits for 6 gigawatts and submitted an application for five more. Fermi also recently enlisted a partner, Hillcore Energy, to build and operate 2.6 gigawatts of the total.
Potential size: 9.2 gigawatts
Location: Piketon, Ohio
Developer: SB Energy, backed by the U.S. government
Grid connection: According to the Department of Energy, it will “connect to the local grid,” i.e. PJM Interconnection
Customer: OpenAI
No air permits have been filed. Because the project is partially on federal land, it will have to undergo federal environmental review. The Trump administration has already decided to fast track permitting for the project, however, and expects to complete it by Christmas.
Potential size: 9 gigawatts
Location: Box Elder County, Utah
Developer: Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority and investor Kevin O’Leary
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Box County approved two resolutions in support of the project in May. It faces intense local opposition. The developers reached an agreement with Utah Governor Spencer Cox in May to cap Phase I of the project at 1.5 gigawatts.
Potential size: “8+” gigawatts, though the initial phase is much smaller
Location: Point Pleasant, West Virginia
Developer: Nscale
Grid connection: No
Customer: Microsoft agreed to offtake just over 1.3 gigawatts of compute
Nscale’s air permit application for a roughly 2.2-gigawatt natural gas power station is pending. The company says it has “a clear expansion path to 8GW+ as workload demand grows.”
Potential size: about 7.7 gigawatts
Location: Fort Stockton, Texas
Developer: Pacifico Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Amazon
The state approved Pacifico’s air permit for 7.65 gigawatts in January. The site is under construction.
Potential size: More than 7 gigawatts
Location: Hubbard, Texas
Developer: Nexus Data Centers
Grid connection: No
Customer: Anthropic
Nexus’ air permit application is pending. The permit’s list of natural gas turbines and engines amount to more than 7 gigawatts of generation, however a July Wall Street Journal article about a potential financing deal for the project noted that the site would be capable of generating just 1.6 gigawatts. The deal has not yet been confirmed.
Potential size: 5.2 gigawatts
Location: Bethel, Texas
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: Unknown
Customer: Unknown
The planned facility is part of a trade deal between the Trump administration and Japan. On August 12, NextEra executed agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the government of Japan to fund the development and operation of the project.
Potential size: 5 gigawatts
Location: Midland County, Texas
Developer: FO Permian Partners/HiVolt Energy
Grid connection: No
Customer: Unknown
Highly speculative. The developers haven’t made any permit filings that I was able to find. FO Permian’s website says that Phase I will be just 150 megawatts, but that the site has “5GW+ of dedicated gas supply.”
Potential size: 4.4 gigawatts
Location: Homer City, Pennsylvania
Developer: Knighthead Capital Management
Grid connection: Developer says it “will have capacity to serve multiple large data center customers and supply power to thousands of homes on the local grid.”
Customer: Amazon is in talks
Air permits were approved in November. Construction is underway.
Potential size: 4.3 gigawatts
Location: Southwest Pennsylvania (precise location undisclosed)
Developer: NextEra
Grid connection: According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, it will connect to PJM
Customer: Unknown
The project is part of the same trade deal with Japan as the NextEra project in Bethel, Texas.
We have run out of time for half measures, argues the Natural Resources Defense Council’s head of climate science and policy.
In just its first three years, the Inflation Reduction Act had historic impacts on the U.S. energy mix, spurring 115 gigawatts of new, clean generation — enough to power more than 20 million American homes.
The law was also living up to its promise to be the largest climate action in U.S. history, with projections that it would lead to up to 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions from the power sector alone a year by 2035. Then Trump returned to power and backed Republicans in Congress as they used their One Big Beautiful Bill Act to repeal many of the IRA’s most potent climate policies.
An analysis published last month by MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research argues that in spite of these losses, “the glass is half full.” Clean power is still thriving, the report argues, regardless of the attacks on solar and wind and on efforts to address climate change.
When I look at the data, however, I see a glass much more than half empty.
The repeal of the key IRA tax credits and other Trump administration policies will result in 637 fewer gigawatts in added clean energy over the next 15 years and cost the average American household $4,500, according to modeling by Energy Innovation.
Axing the tax credits also results in the U.S. losing up to 85% of the projected emissions reductions from the IRA by 2035. This is the case even though many wind and solar projects will continue to claim tax credits through 2030, meaning that as time goes on, the losses will get steeper.
My own analysis, released Tuesday, finds that the Trump administration’s policies would result in the loss of up to 540 gigawatts of clean energy over the next decade — 40% of all the new power expected to be built before Trump took office. In total, the U.S. stands to lose more than $700 billion in net power sector investment. Over the next decade that will mean a half-million fewer clean energy jobs, $230 more on the average utility bill, and 600 million metric tons of additional carbon emissions a year, essentially doubling the power sector's climate footprint in 2035.
This debate is crucially important as we think about how to set durable policies once a president who dismisses climate change as the “greatest con job ever perpetuated” finally leaves office for good. Given the crisis before us, we cannot accept progress in half-measures. Whether you see the glass as half full or half empty, it’s simply not enough. The next administration will need to build on the success of the IRA to make sure we make up for the time and scale we have lost under Trump.
For longtime advocates of clean energy like me, we are in the best of times and the worst of times.
Buoyed by a stunning reduction in the cost of utility-scale solar (81% since 2009) and onshore wind (50%), and by the boost from tax credits, clean energy development in the U.S. is surging. The country added more wind, solar, and battery storage in the last five years than it had in the previous century, delivering record-breaking amounts of clean energy each year after the IRA passed. The power sector plans to add more new power capacity in 2026 than it has ever built in the nation’s history, with 93% of it coming from solar, wind, and battery storage.
And yet, with the One Big Beautiful Bill, less than half of the wind, solar, and battery projects predicted under the IRA will likely be built over the next decade — up to 59 gigawatts per year instead of up to 131 gigawatts, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Nature Reviews Clean Energy. That means the loss of enough electricity to power tens of millions of homes a year by the 2030s.
Add the administration’s other harmful actions to cancel offshore wind leases, enact tariffs that have made development prohibitively expensive, and delay approvals of even routine permits, and the impacts skyrocket. Altogether, Trump’s energy agenda is set to cost the average American household $4,500 more on their energy bills over the next 15 years, according to Energy Innovation’s analysis. Because gas turbines are in short supply, ending the solar and wind tax credits “directly increases system costs by making the only thing available more expensive,” it concluded.
It’s worth taking a moment to explain why this outlook is so much worse than “more than half full.”
The MIT paper compares expected power sector emissions in 2035 to a baseline of 2021. In one scenario it looks at the outlook under pre-Trump policies, including both the IRA and new emissions standards enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency that Trump is moving to undo versus what is expected now.
This approach is a departure from how policy impacts are best measured. In standard practice, modelers compare policies against a “business-as-usual” scenario, i.e. the current policy landscape, not an arbitrarily chosen past year.
The Nature Reviews Clean Energy meta-analysis did exactly this, comparing the Big Beautiful Bill not only to the IRA but also to a “No IRA” baseline to isolate the impact from these policies. The conclusion: Economy-wide, the GOP tax law eliminates between 67% and 85% of the emissions reductions projected under the IRA, bringing us back nearly to the No IRA world.
Even with the static comparison used by MIT, the year chosen can change the picture substantially. While MIT’s analysis chose 2021, the latest Energy Innovation analysis started from 2025, the most recent full-year data. Using 2025 as a baseline, the researchers found that federal policies enacted since January 2025 will result in 56% fewer emission reductions over the next 15 years.
To be clear, that is not 56% of the emission reductions due to the IRA, but rather 56% of all emission reductions expected due to policy and baseline trends. Losing more than half of our nation’s progress is a heavy blow.
To some degree, the MIT paper is not contesting this conclusion. The “Glass Half Full” paper’s author, Lily Bermel, says the underlying economic trends are a reason that restoring the tax credits wouldn’t be the most effective use of political capital. She argues that solar and wind are now “mature” technologies, and that “the energy transition’s direction is set by technology costs and demand growth, while policy shapes its pace and scale.”
However while wind, solar and batteries are now a low-cost resource and the dominant source of new power, we still aren’t building as much or as fast as we need to.
Renewables come with a wide array of public benefits: They reduce energy prices, volatility risk, and dependence on foreign fuels; they cut emissions and local pollution; and they promote American jobs and manufacturing. Peer-reviewed research has concluded that the U.S. needs to build twice as much wind and solar per year over the next decade as currently projected given the risks of climate change. That’s a wide gap between what the market is delivering and what the public needs. Government incentives and standards remain key to filling this gap.
We also can’t ignore the affordability crisis facing many American households today. While wind and solar are low-cost, mature technologies that lower electricity prices and rates due to minimal operating costs, building these facilities at scale involves large upfront costs that tax credits can help mitigate. Tax credits make clean energy technologies more competitive and reduce utility bills by moving these costs from households to the federal government.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Bermel built on her analysis to make four concrete policy recommendations. Instead of reestablishing tax credits for solar and wind, Congress should push through permitting and transmission reforms and support for “clean firm” technologies such as nuclear (a technology that has been available at commercial scale since the 1950s) and geothermal power, she argued.
The answer to our predicament is to “build,” she writes, echoing a refrain that the Natural Resources Defense Council has been highlighting recently as well. But Bermel says these measures should be done instead of reinstating the tax incentives for solar and wind.
That’s the wrong place to start.
Given the surging demand for electricity, growing costs of climate change, and skyrocketing electricity bills across the U.S., a new Congress will need to address many issues at once. We will need measures to speed approvals for new transmission lines and get grid operators like PJM to connect more power to their grids. We will also need emissions standards and tax incentives, expanding on the incredibly successful tax credits for solar and wind to make sure enough low-cost, affordable clean energy gets built. And we will need other tax and trade policies to ensure all of this is driving American-made manufacturing.
That’s a lot to tackle, but given the climate destruction we’ve seen this summer from Oregon to Ontario and far, far beyond, we cannot settle for just a few sips of progress when we need a full pint. And, importantly, voters support these actions and reward lawmakers who take them. Leaders in Washington shouldn’t shrink from the challenge just because the failing Trump administration wants to pretend it is all a hoax.