Tax credit cuts could spoil an even more important clean energy goal
As budget negotiations grip the US Congress, some lawmakers are already looking ahead to the next big energy fight, one with even higher stakes for clean energy and the AI power race: Permitting reform.
Bipartisan discussions 'are being seeded now' on the scope of a bill that could speed up approvals for new grid lines and pipelines, and restrict the use of litigation to block such projects, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) told Semafor, and could lead to draft legislation 'pretty quickly' once the budget talks conclude. But the appetite for compromise on permitting will depend on the outcome of the budget: Democrats may feel burned by tax credit cuts, and Republicans may be able to score some permitting wins without a separate compromise bill.
So far, preliminary hearings on the subject this year have shown 'the consensus around developing bipartisan permitting reform legislation,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), who chairs the upper chamber's Environment and Public Works Committee, told Semafor. 'I continue to work with my colleagues across both chambers to make our permitting and environmental review processes more efficient, predictable, and transparent, so that we can complete projects of all types.'
As much as clean energy companies would like to keep their current tax benefits, slow permitting bureaucracy and legal entanglements are still the biggest bottlenecks for the industry and its fossil fuel competitors: The existence of hypothetical tax credits is no use if projects can't get built to tap them.
The budget reconciliation bill that passed the House of Representatives last week included provisions for fossil projects to pay a fee to jump ahead of the permitting queue, but stricter rules in the Senate about what exactly can be included in a budget bill mean those provisions are likely to get dropped, analysts say. Budget reconciliation was never going to be an effective forum for permitting reform; a bipartisan bill is still the only way to make the necessary changes, and make them stick.
'Everything the Trump administration can do or has done on permitting is prone to reversal,' said Xan Fishman, senior managing director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. 'After reconciliation, everyone will look around and say, 'We still need permitting reform'.'
Conditions are favorable for a deal that builds on the one advanced last year by Sens. Joe Manchin (now retired) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Key committee leaders, including Reps. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) in the House and Sens. Capito and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) in the Senate, have expressed interest in prioritizing a permitting deal. The center of gravity has shifted from the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources committee, where Manchin sat, to Capito's Environment and Public Works committee, where issues around environmental impact statements and judicial rules can be more readily addressed.
While some Republicans are pushing to break off chunks of permitting in smaller bills, such as a 'permit-by-rule' bill passed by the House Oversight committee last week, a spokesperson for Peters said that the goal is still 'a bigger more comprehensive product' that can address the full laundry list of permitting issues.
Even if the permitting measures that Democrats oppose are struck from the budget bill, later negotiations could still get dragged down by the tax credit cuts. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Politico that the Inflation Reduction Act and permitting reform were always meant to be linked, and that it's a 'fantasy' to suppose one could proceed without the other.
'If all the IRA tax credits are gutted,' Fishman said, 'there's a risk Democrats will question why they should work on permitting at all, if this stuff isn't going to get built anyway.'
Meanwhile, he said, the fact that components of permitting reform remain spread across the jurisdictions of numerous committees is 'the major structural challenge for a deal.'
The fate of IRA tax credits now hangs with a few key senators. Ones to watch, Heatmap reported, include Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John Curtis (R-Utah).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
TechCrunch
22 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Moratorium on state AI regulation clears Senate hurdle
A Republican effort to prevent states from enforcing their own AI regulations cleared a key procedural hurdle on Saturday. The rule, as reportedly rewritten by Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz in an attempt to comply with budgetary rules, would withhold federal broadband funding from states if they try to enforce AI regulations in the next 10 years. And the rewrite seems to have passed muster, with the Senate Parliamentarian now ruling that the provision is not subject to the so-called Byrd rule — so it can be included in Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and passed with a simple majority, without potentially getting blocked by a filibuster, and without requiring support from Senate Democrats. However, it's not clear how many Republicans will support the moratorium. For example, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee recently said, 'We do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state.' And while the House of Representatives already passed a version of the bill that included a moratorium on AI regulation, far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene subbsequently declared that she is 'adamantly OPPOSED' the provision as 'a violation of state rights' and said it needs to be 'stripped out in the Senate.' House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the provision by saying it had President Donald Trump's support and arguing, 'We have to be careful not to have 50 different states regulating AI, because it has national security implications, right?' In a recent report, Americans for Responsible Innovation (an advocacy group for AI regulation), wrote that 'the proposal's broad language could potentially sweep away a wide range of public interest state legislation regulating AI and other algorithmic-based technologies, creating a regulatory vacuum across multiple technology policy domains without offering federal alternatives to replace the eliminated state-level guardrails.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW A number of states do seem to be taking steps toward AI regulation. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a high-profile AI safety bill last year while signing a number of less controversial regulations around issues like privacy and deepfakes. In New York, an AI safety bill passed by state lawmakers is awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's signature. And Utah has passed its own regulations around AI transparency.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats at odds over response to Trump decision to join Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tack, saying, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions 'horrible judgment' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X. A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report
