Commentary: Can Donald Trump Save the Inflation Reduction Act From Joe Biden?
The following OpEd by ConservAmerica fellow Patrick Hynes appears in Real Clear Energy.
When it comes to climate and energy policy, is there a clear favorite in November’s presidential election? Americans aren’t so sure, according to CBS News polling, which found 36% prefer Joe Biden’s approach to climate change, while 35% prefer Donald Trump’s. Regarding energy policy, 39% prefer Trump’s approach compared to 34% for Biden. These results may surprise you, but they suggest the greater public is more enlightened about the issue than ever before.
The truth is that deep decarbonization will require technological breakthroughs that we can’t control or predict but can facilitate by setting favorable conditions through policy. Democrats tend to set policies that assume certain technologies will succeed on a prescribed timeline, and therefore they lean into coercing an energy transition based on lofty assumptions. The problem with this approach is that if things don’t develop according to the plan, the public pays for scarcer and more expensive energy. Given the public’s skepticism, Republicans should lean into the debate by proposing a plan that doesn’t shy away from investing in clean energy but rejects mandates and overbearing regulations that impede a competitive, “all-of-the-above” energy transition.
If Trump and Congressional Republicans take control next year, one should expect the White House to roll back much of Biden’s regulatory agenda. Since the Biden administration utilized executive action to implement most new climate regulations, it will be easier for Trump to tackle these compared to laws like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, there is also no question the IRA will be in play.
And that is precisely why - rather than painting the entire IRA with a broad brush - we need to start looking at the specific IRA provisions.. As Rep. Garret Graves put it, “Some people use scalpels, and some people use sledgehammers,”
First of all, in many respects, the IRA simply extends or expands prior bipartisan actions, including several that were initiated during Trump’s first term, like support for nuclear energy.
Trump’s former Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, who now runs a trade group of utility companies, told the Financial Times, “incentives in the IRA to continue the development of nuclear power . . . are wholly in line with the Trump policies,” and he expects them to continue. The fact that Russia and China have usurped our capability to build and deploy nuclear reactors - domestically and globally - does not sit well with Republicans. Support for existing and future reactors will likely remain unchanged - particularly Trump-era programs like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
There’s also a good argument that the IRA’s manufacturing incentives should continue, especially since they are heavily concentrated in a handful of states that will decide this election. Since the IRA was passed, most of the manufacturing investment has gone to EVs and batteries - both of which have strong long-term demand prospects and geopolitical importance. Investing in these nascent industries is consistent with how Republicans have always approached industrial policy, but Democrats take it a step too far by also forcing a transition away from internal combustion engine vehicles via mandates that are deeply unpopular, particularly in Michigan and Ohio where EV manufacturing is taking place. By focusing on the flaws of the latter approach, Republicans can set forth a more politically attractive strategy.
Instead of trashing the whole IRA, Trump’s main goal should be to convince the public that Biden is his own worst enemy when it comes to achieving sustainable energy dominance because he is unwilling to tackle regulatory hurdles. The current administration proudly empowers climate activists who weaponize proceduralism and politicize bureaucracy based on green ideology, ignoring permitting and licensing reforms and thus undermining IRA investments. Clearing red tape for clean energy deployment is a winning position, voters just need to be aware that it’s a major issue impacting their investments as taxpayers.
Authorizing bureaucrats to coerce energy markets decades into the future is a recipe for disaster unless we want to end up like Germany. An energy transition rooted in liberty shouldn’t exclude federal investment in clean technologies with market potential. But it should always ensure that every tax dollar is invested wisely to bring continued prosperity to the American people.
Patrick Hynes is a fellow with ConservAmerica.