It has been a year of turbulence and dramatic contrasts in federal energy policy.
The U.S. clean energy transition gained substantial economic momentum from the tax credits, grants and other incentives in the signature legislation of President Joe Biden’s administration, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
In her last major public speech at the Department of Energy’s Deploy 2024 Conference on Dec. 5, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm pointed to the more than 900 cleantech factories and projects announced since the passage of the laws. Every dollar of federal funds spent supporting these facilities has drawn in $6 of private investment, she claimed.
The clean energy transition has become inevitable, inexorable and built to last, Granholm said.
But an increasingly pressing question loomed over each new announcement of IIJA and IRA grant and loan awards: Would the federal dollars and programs continue if former President Donald Trump were to be elected and Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress?
Trump campaigned on pledges to claw back all unspent funds from the IRA and to “drill, baby, drill” to restore the dominance of fossil fuels in U.S. energy policy.
Certainly, energy industry leaders started laying out various scenarios about the fate of clean energy policy in a second Trump administration more than a year before the president-elect and Republican lawmakers will take control of Washington again.
At RTO Insider, our first article appeared on Aug. 2, 2023, with former FERC Commissioner Bernard McNamee discussing what has become an extreme-reorientation scenario, as detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s 920-page Mandate for Leadership, commonly referred to as “Project 2025,” which itself was published in April 2023. (See Plan for GOP President: Cut Climate Programs, ‘Re-examine’ RTOs.)
McNamee authored Project 2025’s chapter on the Department of Energy and related commissions, in which he called for DOE to be renamed the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science and to be downsized, returning the agency to the core pillars of the 1977 legislation under which it was created:
-
- engaging in basic and fundamental science and research through the 17 National Laboratories;
- cleaning up nuclear waste and weapons sites from World War II’s Manhattan Project and the Cold War;
- developing storage sites for nuclear waste produced by “civilian” nuclear reactors; and
- developing new nuclear weapons and naval reactors, led by the department’s National Nuclear Security Administration.
McNamee urged for a full repeal of the IRA and IIJA and called for the defunding or closure of DOE offices that have played a major role in implementing the laws, including the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, the Grid Deployment Office and the Loan Programs Office.
The Economics Scenario
More optimistic scenarios emerged early in 2024, with panel discussions at successive industry conferences advancing variations on what has become a dominant post-election narrative: About 80% of the federal dollars from the IRA and IIJA have gone to Republican-led states and districts, a lopsided distribution that is expected to prevent a full repeal.
Speaking at the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Policy Forum in March, Melissa Burnison, vice president of federal legislative affairs at Berkshire Hathaway Energy, said, “Bipartisan benefits from the IRA, from tax policy [are] something that ― even from the most conservative congressional members, we’ve heard ― we’re not going to see a wholesale repeal of the IRA.
“First of all, it’s probably not possible, and second of all, it doesn’t make sense for their constituents.”
A similar talking point for many clean energy advocates has been the Aug. 6 letter that 18 House members sent to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), arguing against repeal of the IRA’s clean energy tax credits.
Before the election, Johnson replied that any rollbacks to the IRA would be made with a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.
The business case for the IRA continued to spark optimism among the attendees at Deploy 2024, where the industry turned out “in force,” said Aram Shumavon, CEO of Kevala, a grid data analytics firm. “The transition has built enough momentum that the economics of it just make sense. …
“Even in the face of or the prospect of very significant swings associated with some tariffs and things along those lines, and potential significant challenges to some of the programs that create subsidies right now, the economics of zero-marginal-cost fuels and a bunch of technologies that support the evolution of the grid are undeniable,” Shumavon said in a post-conference interview with RTO Insider.
According to LPO Director Jigar Shah, his office still is receiving about one new loan application per week.
The Political Scenario
As they prepare to leave office, Shah and other Biden administration officials have remained advocates for the economic argument for the IIJA, IRA and the clean energy transition in general. The investments made and jobs created are in and of themselves irreversible, they say, and any claw-back attempt might create bad press for Republicans.
Getting money out the door ― which DOE has been doing at breakneck speed since the election ― also has been seen as an effective way to “Trump-proof” those funds. DOE officials have stressed that once the department signs a contract with an organization selected to receive federal dollars ― including companies with conditional loan commitments from the LPO ― that money cannot be clawed back.
Shah has noted that all DOE contracts were honored during the first Trump administration.
But a range of industry analysts and D.C. insiders have warned that the clean energy industry and its advocates should take Trump and congressional Republicans at their word and prepare for shifting priorities, ongoing uncertainty, and some major roadblocks and rollbacks.
A top priority for the new Congress will be extending the 2017 tax cuts, passed during Trump’s first administration, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. The IRA could be “cannibalized” to help pay for those cuts, which could cost an estimated $4 trillion to $5 trillion. According to Alex McDonough, a partner at policy consultancy Pioneer Public Affairs, House Republicans could have a budget reconciliation package to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) ready to introduce in the first full week of January.
With narrow majorities in both Houses, even Republicans who favor keeping at least some IRA tax credits may have little wiggle room to negotiate, McDonough warned at the 2024 Solar Focus conference in Baltimore on Nov. 19.
“If we get to a point where there’s a tax bill on the floor that extends the 2017 tax cuts and includes all the IRA provisions in there, cutting them in any which way, they will vote for it,” he said. “They will have to vote for that bill for political reasons; because if that bill fails, they will be responsible for an income tax hike for every American.”
The IRA’s $7,500 rebates for electric vehicles are one of the most frequently mentioned rollback targets. Phasing out the investment and production tax credits for clean technologies also could be pushed up from the law’s 10-year time frame to five years.
Beth Viola, a senior policy adviser at Holland & Knight, expects Trump to issue a post-inauguration hold on further awards of IIJA and IRA funds, including grants or loans with signed contracts.
“It may be that they just slow everything down so that nobody gets those dollars or sees those dollars for a very long time, if ever,” Viola said at the National Clean Energy Week Policymakers’ Symposium on Sept. 25.
Policies and People
While Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, his calls for “U.S. energy dominance” and rejection of clean energy policies echo former Commissioner McNamee’s rhetoric in the plan.
But, as noted at pre- and post-election industry conferences, the success of such policies could depend on the people who shape and implement them. The potential leaders for energy policy in the Trump administration often say they favor an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy but primarily lean toward fossil fuels.
That description fits both North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) and Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, a natural gas company, Trump’s picks to head the Interior and Energy departments, respectively.
Burgum has supported wind energy, which provides more than a third of North Dakota’s electric power but was one of the organizers behind a much publicized campaign dinner at which Trump asked oil and gas company executives for $1 billion in donations, pledging to repeal a range of environmental regulations in return.
Wright has no prior government experience. He has published several online videos in which he has proselytized for the benefits of “hydrocarbons,” and downplayed the existence of climate change and the clean energy transition.
Trump has also selected Burgum to lead a newly formed National Energy Council, of which Wright will also be a member. Trump has said the cross-agency body will focus on “cutting red tape, enhancing private-sector investments across all sectors of the economy and [promoting] innovation over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.”
Since Trump’s announcement of his selections, both presumptive nominees have remained mum on their plans for their respective departments. If confirmed, early actions might include accelerating Interior’s permitting of energy infrastructure on federal lands, including oil and gas drilling and pipelines, and rolling back regulations that seek to limit fossil fuel use, such as DOE’s final rule raising efficiency standards for gas stoves.
Policies and programs with bipartisan support have the best chance of survival, such as DOE’s regional clean hydrogen hubs and direct air capture hubs, both of which have funding from the IIJA and strong support from fossil fuel companies.
The wild card is the significant growth of artificial intelligence and data centers and the resulting power demand. Trump’s energy policy objectives ― more baseload plants, lower electric bills ― could collide with the plans of some tech giants to power their operations with clean, dispatchable power.
The buzz at most industry conferences since the election is that between Trump’s promised tariffs and new fossil fuel plants, electricity bills aren’t going anywhere but up.
In other words, no one can predict exactly how Trump’s energy policies will play out or the mix of economics, politics and people that could determine what happens next.