Subsidies vs. Tax Deductions: What IRA Defenders Get Wrong

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), President Biden’s signature climate bill, passed solely by Democrats, contains lucrative, essentially uncapped subsidies for wind and solar-generated power. Under current law, the tax credits phase out over four years, starting in either 2032 or when the U.S. power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions fall to a quarter of their 2022 levels — whichever comes later. An essentially uncapped phase-out defies the original purpose of tax credits, which is to spur the advent of young industries. The wind and solar power industries are decades old and should be able to advance without continued support from lawmakers and American taxpayers. These industries supplied 15.6% of the electricity generated by central generating stations in 2024, surpassing coal generation for the first time, which accounted for 15.2% of that power in the same year. As such, solar and wind tax credits should be phased out much earlier, as they are in the House version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Wind Energy Tax Credits

Wind energy is far from a modern innovation — it has been utilized for hundreds of years. The United States made an early push to establish a wind power sector in the 1970s, starting in places like California’s Altamont Pass. However, those early efforts eventually lost momentum. Today’s wind turbines are significantly more advanced than those of the past, thanks to state requirements and both federal and state-level incentives. These modern turbines are built with better materials, operate more efficiently, and come at a lower cost. Nonetheless, wind energy still faces a major limitation: it’s intermittent. When the wind isn’t blowing, alternative energy sources must step in — either through costly battery storage systems or conventional power plants fueled by coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. These backup systems must be available nearly all the time and could operate as primary sources on their own, running up to 85% of the time or more.

Roughly half of U.S. states have laws mandating that a specific portion of their electricity come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. On top of that, the federal government has provided substantial financial support to these industries. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that federal subsidies for wind power increased tenfold between fiscal years 2007 and 2010. During that same period, wind power production jumped by 175%, growing from just 0.8% of the national electricity mix in 2007 to 2.3% in 2010. However, achieving that growth required a significant investment — $5 billion in subsidies in fiscal year 2010 alone. That year, taxpayers spent $56 in subsidies for every megawatt hour of wind energy produced, compared to just 64 cents for electricity from coal or natural gas. According to the EIA, 97% of those wind subsidies came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

From FY 2010 to FY 2013, wind subsidies climbed another 8%, and wind’s share of electricity generation rose to 4.1%. By FY 2016, wind energy received $1.27 billion in subsidies (adjusted to 2016 dollars), with most of that aid delivered through tax incentives. Even so, wind generated only 5.6% of the nation’s electricity, while coal and natural gas together provided 64%. The EIA’s most recent report shows that federal subsidies for wind energy more than quadrupled between FY 2016 and FY 2022, rising from $846 million to $3.59 billion (both figures in 2022 dollars).

Wind power comes with notable limitations. As previously noted, it only generates electricity when wind conditions are favorable, regardless of the current demand for electricity. This variability means wind has limited capacity value — it can’t be called upon reliably like coal or natural gas plants, which can be dispatched on demand. Despite this, wind energy often receives preferential grid access when available. This helps utilities meet state renewable mandates and allows wind operators to claim the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), which compensates them simply for generating power, regardless of whether it’s needed at the time.

The PTC was first introduced in 1992 under the Energy Policy Act, offering a tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced from wind for the first ten years of a facility’s operation. Though it was originally designed as a temporary support to help the industry grow, the credit has now been in place for over three decades. Since 1999, it has been extended more than a dozen times. According to estimates from the U.S. Treasury, the current form of the PTC will cost taxpayers $289.63 billion between fiscal years 2025 and 2034, making it the most costly energy subsidy currently in the tax code.

Although wind advocates claim that the technology is now competitive with conventional power sources, the industry continues to push for continued support through the IRA’s credits. However, these incentives have unintended consequences. One major issue is their impact on electricity markets. The PTC can cause wholesale electricity prices to fall below zero, forcing other generators to accept negative prices. Because taxpayers pay wind operators, they can still turn a profit even if they must pay the grid to accept their electricity. Negative pricing means that power producers are actually paying to stay online.

Negative wholesale prices typically signal oversupply, warning the market that generation exceeds demand and urging producers to scale back. But wind facilities are insulated from these signals because of government subsidies that reward them for producing energy no matter what. In effect, the federal government is tipping the scales, incentivizing electricity production whether it’s needed or not, distorting market dynamics and undermining more flexible and responsive power sources.

The PTC also distorts the true cost of electricity generation by shifting a significant portion of the financial burden onto taxpayers. Because wind is an intermittent resource — it doesn’t generate power continuously—it needs to be backed up by more reliable sources, typically coal or natural gas plants that can be ramped up when electricity demand rises and wind output falls. This redundancy means consumers effectively pay twice: once for the wind infrastructure and again for the conventional backup power that ensures the lights stay on when wind conditions aren’t favorable.

Adding to the challenge, wind output is often highest during times of low electricity demand, such as late at night or in the early morning hours. Yet, cost estimates for wind energy often exclude the expense of maintaining backup power sources or deploying large-scale battery systems — another costly solution made necessary by the inconsistent nature of wind and solar energy. Utility-scale batteries, while seen as a potential fix, are extremely expensive and wouldn’t be required if not for policies that subsidize and mandate intermittent renewables.

Wind power also faces other significant drawbacks beyond cost and reliability. Wind turbines generate noise, require vast areas of land, and pose a serious threat to wildlife, particularly birds of prey and bats that are killed by spinning blades. Moreover, the best wind resources are usually located in remote regions, far from population centers. Transmitting power from these distant sites to where it’s actually needed requires building out costly new infrastructure — transmission lines that ultimately show up on consumers’ utility bills.

The lifespan of a wind turbine is typically between 20 and 25 years, considerably shorter than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants, which can operate efficiently for 40 to 50 years. Decommissioning wind turbines presents its own environmental challenge, especially the disposal of their massive blades. These components are difficult to recycle and often end up in landfills, creating a growing waste management issue.

Solar Investment Tax Credit

The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar energy provides a 30% tax credit on the investment in a qualifying solar facility, meaning that taxpayers literally purchase 30% of the capital cost of every solar array on roofs or in industrial solar farms. Because about 80% of U.S. solar panels originate overseas, U.S. taxpayers are contributing 24% of the cost of manufacturing solar panels overseas. The Solar ITC, initially introduced in 1978, was significantly enhanced in 2005 with an expiration date of 2007, which was later extended to 2016, accompanied by a clear phase-down path. It underwent 15 extensions, culminating in the IRA.

The EIA found that solar subsidies were $3.036 billion in FY 2016,doubling to $7.522 billion in fiscal year 2022, representing 33% of total renewable subsidies. The EIA found that federal subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy in FY 2022 totaled $15.6 billion — almost five times higher than those for fossil energy, which totaled $3.2 billion in subsidies. The subsidies in the EIA’s reports do not include state and local subsidies, mandates, or incentives that, in many cases, are quite substantial, especially for renewable energy sources. The EIA also did not include the massive subsidies authorized in the IRA.

In 2024, the Treasury estimated that the ITC would cost taxpayers $24.2 billion in FY 2024 and $131.44 billion between FY 2025 and FY 2034. As mentioned above, the IRA sunsets the ITC only after the U.S. electricity sector achieves a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 2022 baseline, which is unlikely to be achievable. Therefore, there is essentially no cap on the credits awarded for solar energy through the IRA. Solar energy has not benefited the U.S. power system because it has led to increased reliability problems and added costs, causing issues for the electric grid and threatening blackouts, as recently occurred in Spain when two large solar farms went offline.

Oil and Gas Tax Deductions

When discussions arise about whether to extend tax credits for wind and solar energy, environmentalists and some lawmakers often respond by citing “taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies” as justification. However, what is commonly referred to as subsidies for the oil industry are actually tax deductions — not credits — and they primarily benefit small, independent oil and natural gas producers, not the large, multinational firms typically labeled as “big oil.”

One of these deductions is available to all domestic manufacturers, not just those in the fossil fuel sector. The remaining deductions are standard business write-offs, similar to tax breaks for research and development that apply across various industries.

Two specific deductions that mainly support small producers are the percentage depletion allowance and the ability to expense intangible drilling costs. The percentage depletion allowance permits small oil and gas operators to deduct a portion of the value of extracted resources as the well is depleted. While this may sound complex, it functions similarly to asset depreciation in other industries, comparable to how a manufacturing facility’s value is gradually written down over time. This provision dates back to 1926 and was intended to reflect the diminishing value of a finite resource. Importantly, it has not applied to major oil companies since it was removed for them in 1975. This tax deduction was estimated to save independent oil and gas producers about $0.7 billion in fiscal year 2024.

Independent oil producers can also deduct certain expenses related to drilling and developing wells as part of their regular business operations. Specifically, the tax code allows these smaller producers to fully write off what’s known as intangible drilling costs — such as labor, site preparation, and survey work — each year. This provision is designed to incentivize continued exploration of new oil resources. Larger, integrated oil companies are treated differently under the tax code. While they are still allowed to deduct intangible drilling costs, they can only expense about one-third immediately and are required to spread the remaining deductions evenly over five years. This approach mirrors how other industries treat similar investments, like research and development, by allowing businesses to recover costs over time. This tax deduction was estimated to save independent oil and gas producers about $0.6 billion in fiscal year 2024.

Another tax deduction is the Domestic Manufacturing tax deduction, which allows all industries and businesses (not just oil companies) to deduct a certain percentage of their profits — it is 6% for the oil and gas industry and 9% for all other industries (software developers, video game developers, the motion picture industry, and green energy producers, among others).

Comparison of Major Tax Incentives

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the production tax credit for wind was estimated to cost taxpayers $3.4 billion in FY 2024, the investment tax credit for solar was estimated to cost $15.9 billion, and the three tax deductions for oil and gas listed below combined were estimated to cost $1.3 billion. According to these numbers, the wind and solar tax credits outweighed the tax deductions of oil and gas companies by a factor of 15 in FY 2024. Furthermore, this comparison does not include the tax deductions that the wind and solar industries receive for depreciation and manufacturing, nor the benefits they derive from state mandates and subsidies.

When compared to the relative amounts of energy produced by each source, taxpayers are receiving little benefit from wind and solar energy, and a significant benefit from oil and natural gas. Almost all of our transportation is fueled by oil, and natural gas is the largest source for both heating homes and making the electricity that cools our homes, fuels our factories, schools, and hospitals, making modern life possible.

Source: Joint Committee on Taxation

Conclusion

The House has passed a bill that essentially phases out the IRA tax credits for wind and solar power over a short period. The Senate is now debating the issue. The wind and solar industries want to keep the tax credits that were in the Democrat-passed IRA. The small tax benefits available to oil and gas producers pale in comparison to the vast sums of taxpayer money being handed to wind and solar generators. While the wind and solar industries receive lucrative subsidies from the IRA, the oil and gas industry receives tax deductions estimated to total approximately 6% of what wind and solar would receive. Yet, these energy forms provide very different benefits to Americans, including revenue to the government, employment opportunities, and energy contributions. Even after investing billions, the U.S. economy obtains less than 3% of its primary energy from wind and solar, compared to 74% from natural gas and oil. However you slice it, the wind and solar tax credits are a bad deal for taxpayers and consumers, as they have only escalated the cost of electricity, which increased for residential homeowners by 25% during the Biden administration.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA to the Senate: Absolutely No Backsliding on IRA Subsidies

WASHINGTON DC (6/18/25) – The Senate Finance Committee released its draft text for the budget reconciliation bill this week, notably preserving many of the “clean energy” tax incentives that House Republicans have dramatically scaled back.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The Senate Finance proposal extends subsidies for solar and wind energy through at least 2030 — with some subsidy provisions lasting until 2040. This directly contradicts President Trump’s campaign pledge to ‘terminate the Green New Scam.’

“The Senate should not water down the House’s plan to quickly repeal the Biden-era green giveaways, which – if not repealed – would add trillions to the deficit and increase the cost of energy for hard-working families. Americans should urge their Senators to – at the very least – stick to the House’s plan to quickly repeal the IRA. There is nothing beautiful about a Big Beautiful Bill that is loaded with special interest corporate welfare.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Senate Finance Committee’s Reconciliation Draft Is a Step in the Wrong Direction

The Senate Finance Committee released its draft legislation of the reconciliation bill on Monday and, although the main structure of the bill remains the same as the house version, there are some notable differences in some of its energy provisions. Unfortunately, some of these differences are steps backward in that they replace the House bill’s strict repeals with softer language that allows companies to keep receiving tax credits past the end of President Trump’s time in office. Preventing these draft changes from being included in the final version of the bill will be crucial for ending the threat these green energy tax credits pose to grid reliability.

While the House version of the bill imposed strict deadlines for when green energy projects had to “commence construction” (within 60 days of the bill’s enactment) and be placed in service (by the end of 2028) to receive tax credits, the Senate’s version allows wind and solar firms to remain eligible for tax credits until 2031 if they begin construction before 2027, thanks to a four-year safe harbor for construction. Since the production tax credit (PTC) allows firms to continue receiving subsidies for 10 years after being placed in service, wind and solar projects can collect subsidies from 2030-2040, over a decade after President Trump’s term ends.

Allowing companies to continue utilizing the PTC for solar and wind projects threatens grid stability by keeping solar and wind in business despite their inferiority to reliable sources. With more funds available to these projects, they can spend more on lobbying efforts to convince Congress to extend the tax credits, continuing the cycle of expiration and reinstatement that have made the so-called “phase-out” of subsidies nothing more than a fallacy.

Furthermore, the Senate bill also maintains tax credits for “clean” energy sources besides wind and solar — such as geothermal, hydro, nuclear, and battery storage — based on the phase-out structure of the IRA. In contrast, the House version treated all of these sources (besides nuclear) the same. Even though these sources do not have the same intermittency problem as wind and solar, giving taxpayer dollars to sources that are unproven at scale keeps the government in the business of picking winners and losers while crowding out private investment. 

Another questionable change in the bill is the loosening of the definition of what it means for a company to be foreign-influenced, increasing the threshold for foreign ownership to 25% of an individual company from 10% in the House bill. This change could increase the number of energy projects that receive subsidies as the bill prohibits facilities that receive “material assistance from a prohibited foreign entity” from taking advantage of the tax credits. For instance, a facility that received material assistance from a company that is 15% foreign-owned could qualify for tax credits under the Senate bill, but not the House version. 

When considering China’s outsized share of production for the technology needed for green energy, this distinction could have consequences for national security as fewer companies will be designated as Chinese-influenced — especially given recent reports about rogue communication devices in Chinese solar power inverters.

Although there are some improvements in the Senate bill — notably, the Senate version ends tax credits for electric vehicles 180 days after the bill’s passage, while the House version extended the program by one year for automakers that have sold under 200,000 eligible vehicles — the continuation of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits past the end of President Trump’s term should be a redline that Republicans refuse to cross. Fortunately, the Senate’s version will not garner the approval of fiscal hawks; Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has criticized the bill for failing to address the deficit and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated explicitly that he would not vote for the bill because of the tax credits’ extension.


As Congress makes crucial decisions about what to include in the final bill over the next few days, Republicans need to remember that fully slashing IRA subsidies provides the most reasonable path forward to enacting President Trump’s tax cuts without ballooning the deficit. Failure to do so will delay the bill past the July 4 deadline, further pushing back the day that the IRA’s grid-destroying subsidies are eliminated.


Senator Crapo, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has the opportunity to stand and deliver on President Trump’s energy agenda by ensuring this bill puts a swift end to green energy subsidies that distort the market, raise costs, and undermine grid reliability. Continuing to funnel taxpayer dollars to intermittent energy sources not only jeopardizes President Trump’s energy abundance agenda, it empowers the very Senators who are bought and paid for by the wind and solar lobby. Senator Crapo has the opportunity — and responsibility — to lead the charge in cutting these wasteful handouts.

The Unregulated Podcast #233: Containment Dome

On This episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest developments with President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, the future of EV credits and coal production, and check in on old friend of the show Secretary Jenny.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

California Energy: If it Ain’t Broke Enough, Break it Some More

Despite being the seventh-largest producer of crude oil and third in refining capacity, California continues to demonstrate a desire for self-destruction with its anti-oil and gas stance. California’s aggressive push for destructive energy policies has already resulted in the closure of oil refineries and even the promised relocation of oil major Chevron to friendlier Houston Texas. The closure of refineries statewide will put pressure on California’s ability to provide gasoline to its residents. This will further exacerbate the statewide high gas prices and frustrate already financially struggling Californians. 

By instituting so many aggressive emissions regulations, California has significantly limited its ability to source oil and gasoline effectively. This has turned California into an “oil island” because it lacks the pipeline infrastructure to import from other states, and the Jones Act limits what can be imported by ship from energy-abundant Gulf states such as Texas. For this reason, imports only account for 8% of California’s gasoline supply. However, this percentage may need to rise to 17% if the state does not revise its aggressive drilling and refining policies, especially with the announcement of the closure of three of the State’s major refineries.

California currently has 13 active refineries, 11 of which produce 90% of the state’s gasoline. However, with the closure of Phillips 66’s refinery by the end of 2025 and Valero’s announcement that it would shut down operations at its Benicia refinery by April 2026, the state will lose up to 20% of its current refining capacity. With two locations just outside of Los Angeles, the Wilmington and Carson twin refineries regularly accounted for about 8% of California’s gasoline production, while the San Francisco area Benicia refinery accounts for approximately 9% of gasoline production. The announced closures have taken many by surprise, despite the challenging economic climate, prompting some state officials to urge the state to take control of at least one refinery to guarantee a consistent supply of state-approved gasoline. 

California has the potential to be a major oil-producing state, given that it already, with extremely stringent laws limiting exploration, comes in seventh place in proved reserves by state at 1,492 million barrels of oil as of 2022.  As a result of these hostile policies, major refiners with a presence in California, such as Chevron, Valero, Marathon, PBF Energy, and Phillips 66, are having to change their corporate strategies to account for an artificially induced decrease in demand, which has resulted in weak margins for refining services. California’s refineries have three sources of crude oil: California and various other states, at 29%; Alaska, at 15%; and foreign sources, at 56%.

Instead of changing their bad energy policies to allow for more oil and gas exploration and less regulatory bloat, forces in Sacramento are debating the merit of having the State take control of some of the soon-to-be-abandoned refineries. Twelve countries have state-owned oil refineries, including Mexico, Russia, Venezuela, China, and Saudi Arabia – countries not known for embracing free markets and transparent governance. Why California would want to be grouped with these countries is troubling, yet not surprising. These potential actions should be concerning not only to Californians, who continue to vote for this madness, but also to Americans living in states that mirror California’s climate extremism, such as New York and Massachusetts. 

Policymakers in California assumed they didn’t have to worry about high gas prices since they were hard at work transitioning to electric vehicles via the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations. These regulations mandated that all vehicles sold in California by 2035 be zero-emission. Sacramento’s logic must have been that by preventing the statewide sale of new gas-powered vehicles, high gas prices would be an issue that simply resolves itself. However, this strategy isn’t off to a great start since a mere 25.3% of statewide car registrations were EVs in 2024, far short of California’s initial goal of 35%. 

Fortunately, Californians who believe in common sense may finally exhale a sigh of relief, since the recent passing of H.J. Res 88 by the U.S. Senate has effectively shut down California’s Clean Air Act Waiver for the State’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulation. This action has struck a significant blow to Sacramento’s goal of controlling the free market by forcing the sale of EVs through the banning of gas-powered vehicles.

Anti-oil and gas policies have led to a self-inflicted oil and gasoline supply chain crisis in the Golden State. With such slim operating margins, oil majors are beginning to realize that until California has a political renaissance based on fiscal realism, the survival of the producers and refiners hinges on an exodus from the state. The ultimate irony is that for all of California’s talk about being a warrior against climate change and a champion for renewable energy, Sacramento may end up being the proud new owner of a slightly used, 100-year-old refinery.

Trump Saves Taxpayers From Solyndra 2.0

The Trump administration has canceled a partial loan guarantee of $2.92 billion that had been awarded to troubled residential solar panel installer Sunnova Energy, as part of its review of government financing for alternative energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) had ‘de-obligated’ the loan guarantee, which means that the federal government is not responsible for the financing. Sunnova is restructuring its debt and has warned that it may not be able to continue to stay in business. In a regulatory filing in March, it indicated that it did not intend to use the DOE facility, Project Hestia, for the foreseeable future. Sunnova sold $371 million in bonds that are backed by the Project Hestia loan guarantee, but those notes were not included in the debt that the company is seeking to restructure.

The Biden administration announced a partial loan guarantee of up to $3 billion to support financing for approximately 100,000 rooftop solar installations, primarily for low-income homeowners, in April 2023. Biden’s Energy Department declared the facility as the largest ever commitment to solar power made by the U.S. government. The loan program became less attractive to Sunnova because the company could market cheaper, leased systems to homeowners using tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The credit for loans involved with Project Hestia is a less lucrative subsidy.

Project Hestia is a 568-megawatt project comprising rooftop solar installations, residential battery systems, and intelligent software. Hestia was expected to provide loans for these technologies to homeowners in the United States and Puerto Rico. After receiving the federal loan, Sunnova faced congressional scrutiny for its alleged history of predatory practices and scamming elderly clients. The company was accused of scamming dementia patients on their deathbeds into signing five-figure, multi-decade solar panel leases, according to interviews and state consumer complaint records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Since 2009, the DOE loans office has issued more than $35 billion in loans and loan guarantees, and has been repaid by some companies, including Tesla. In 2011, during the Obama administration, a $535 million federal loan to Solyndra failed, and many are worried that other solar company failures will follow.

Under the Biden administration, the DOE loan office sought to accelerate the development of the “clean” energy sector and provided loans to companies that struggled to secure private financing. Residential solar has struggled as higher interest rates have pushed up financing costs. If the House budget bill passes in its current form, the residential solar industry will continue to falter as tax credits will be going away, rather than being uncapped as in the IRA.

Sunnova Is Not the Only Loan Cancellation By DOE

The Energy Department is cancelling seven major loans and loan guarantees that had been conditionally approved under the Biden administration. Besides Sunnova’s Hestia project, two other projects include a transmission project by a New Jersey utility company and a Monolith Nebraska factory to produce low-carbon ammonia.

Monolith received a $953 million conditional loan guarantee to accelerate its clean hydrogen and carbon utilization project in Nebraska. The company received backing from BlackRock and NextEra Energy, was valued at over $1 billion in 2022, and produces hydrogen fuel using renewable energy (which can be used to make ammonia for fertilizers) and carbon black. In September 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that the company was “running short on cash and facing project delays.”

New Jersey’s Clean Energy Corridor, which is run by Jersey Central Power & Light Company, received a conditional loan guarantee of up to $716 million in January to support the state’s goal of introducing 11,000 megawatts of offshore wind-generated electricity by 2035. When Jersey Central’s owner First Energy announced the project in 2022, Danish energy company Orsted was planning two large wind projects off New Jersey’s coast, but the projects were canceled in 2023. Another offshore wind project in New Jersey was stopped after the Environmental Protection Agency rescinded the project’s environmental permits.

The other four projects, which collectively received over $3 billion, include three battery factories and a plastics and recycling facility, all of which were previously canceled by their companies.

Conclusion

DOE is canceling seven “clean” energy projects for which the Biden loan office provided loan guarantees. The largest funding was allocated to Sunnova, which aimed to provide residential solar energy to low-income households in the United States and Puerto Rico. Sunnova, however, is restructuring its debt and does not plan to use Project Hestia in the foreseeable future. The company has also been accused of scamming the elderly into signing up for residential solar projects, which has led to scrutiny by Congress. The accusations have brought to mind a solar company called Solyndra that failed during the Obama administration, costing American taxpayers $535 million.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Promises Made, Promises Kept: President Trump Signs Resolutions to Save Our Cars

WASHINGTON DC (6/12/25)– This morning, President Trump signed into law three resolutions revoking the national electric vehicle mandates from California on gas-powered cars and trucks, big rigs, and engines.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Thank you to President Trump and House and Senate members who voted in favor of these resolutions. Revoking the waiver has never been just about cars – it’s been about preserving American freedoms. Consumer choice in the auto market and the freedom of mobility are cornerstones of America’s growth and vitality. This is and will be one of the most significant achievements for President Trump and this Congress, led by Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune.

“National policy should not be dictated by individual states or unelected bureaucrats; it was unconscionable that the previous administration ever allowed such a thing to happen. With President Trump’s signature this morning, he finally put an end to Biden/Newsom-era attempts to take away Americans’ transportation freedoms.” 

In May, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 88, providing congressional disapproval of the Clean Air Act waiver for California’s regulation. That vote, along with the House vote, was included in our American Energy Scorecard.

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

AEA Urges Congress to Act on $9.4 Billion Rescission Package

WASHINGTON DC (6/10/25) – This week, Congress is expected to vote on President Trump’s proposal to rescind $9.4 billion in budget authority, which includes the full $125 million appropriated for FY 2025 to the Clean Technology Fund (CTF).

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“President Trump should be commended for sending the $9.4 billion recession package to Capitol Hill for a vote. It shows, once again, that he is committed to reducing unnecessary spending and encouraging Congress to be more judicious with the federal purse strings. This is how the government is supposed to work. While we are still a long way from a responsible and sensible budget process on Capitol Hill, this is an important first step.

“In particular, we are pleased to see that the elimination of the Clean Technology Fund is included in this package. The Obama-era boondoggle has robbed Americans of billions of dollars. As the recent blackouts in Spain very clearly demonstrated, both emerging and developed nations need access to affordable, reliable energy solutions, not globally subsidized wind farms. Thank you to President Trump for recognizing the CTF for what it is – a green slush fund – and continuing to put American taxpayers first.

“The Clean Technology Fund, which is one of two major Climate Investment Funds managed by the World Bank, was launched during the first Obama administration. The United States has long been the largest donor to the fund and has contributed over $3 billion since its inception.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #331: Smoking and Arrogance

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest battle in the fight to save America’s cars, the future of California and more.

Stay Connected With The Show:

The Unregulated Podcast #230: A Week Where Decades Happened

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the battle over the Big Beautiful Bill and more highlights from a busy week in Washington.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show: