Expectation: Republican Trifecta will terminate the vast majority of IRA subsidies.
Three years ago, when the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed, no Republicans supported it. [emphasis, links added]
During the 2024 election, President Trump ran to “terminate” the IRA's energy subsidy, which he called a “green new agreement” or a “green new scam.” “Terminating…Green New Deal” (IRA subsidy) is the first policy of the Republican platform in 2024.
There are good reasons: The IRA subsidizes trillions of dollars in inferior energy forms every decade, which increases energy costs and reduces our grid because subsidies are primarily aimed at unreliable solar and wind.
So when Republicans win the “Trifecta” victory in the presidency, the House and the Senate, including me, it is hoped that at least the vast majority of IRA subsidies will be “terminated” at least during the budget settlement process (when budget-related items, like budget-related items can be passed or terminated by multiple individuals in SENATE's Filibuster Simple Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Profform Proffor
Because I think these lobbyists are wrong, I invested a lot of time and effort to end the IRA subsidy for existing projects. I am lucky to have the trust of many elected officials and I have any chance to explain to them why we should “abolize” the “abolize” of the IRA.
My response behind closed doors was mainly: “We agree with you, but we feel very hard at it” – the special interests of lobbyists and certain areas that rely on these projects.
I say backwards that lobbyists are talking about their books, which are of little real benefit to the region compared to the cost of IRA for everyone, but at some point I can say there will be no full termination at all.
At that time, I expected the following compromise: Republicans would make a deal with grandfather for IRA subsidies for certain existing projects, but they would certainly block any new IRA subsidies for the future door.
This will take care of lobbyists and others’ concerns about damaging existing projects while still saving a lot of money: at least $600 billion with the $1 trillion you will get to get the IRA termination.
@hawleymo Anger against Rinos' attempt to cut Medicaid benefits.
“Let's cut green new deal bullshit and go to chyna subsidies” (I'm sure, back in their pockets)
There are still many things to cut…@gop
Stop talking nonsense pic.twitter.com/crkufhch94– bama_jeans (@bamajayt) May 15, 2025
I hope we can at least get rid of subsidies or reduce subsidies from existing solar and wind projects as these projects are actively destroying our grid and terminating them will save another $200 billion ($800 billion in total savings).
Mystery: Why is the “termination” of the Republican Trifecta, which has subsidized IRA, reached a deal to distribute new products?
But on Tuesday, the House Methods and Means Committee, which oversees IRA subsidies, announced that when Republicans win “termination” the IRA subsidies Trifecta wins a guarantee, I don’t think it’s impossible.
The committee's proposal is not only Grandfather subsidies for all IRAs for existing projectsbut also Provide absolute subsidies for new projects.
Solar and wind subsidies are urgently needed to end the subsidies for our grid (budgets, as they are the biggest subsidies).
They won't be completely terminated (ideal) or grandfather for existing projects (bad, but understandable), but will Keep wandering around For Donald Trump's entire president!
“The Republican “moderates” basically require the Republicans to approve Biden’s spending, spending as appropriate, rights and green subsidies.
House conservatives will be portrayed as grumpy, but the one who warns flares is right. ” https://t.co/1GKK8H1J5K
– Chip Roy (@chiproytx) May 17, 2025
For example, based on suggestions and means proposals, wind developers can bring wind projects online by the end of 2028 and collect generous subsidies Every year until 2038.
The significance of ending the new green scam is too great!
I've detailed the recent proposals for other ways and means here, as well as many other subsidized giveaways. But the question I want to solve here is “Why?”
Why Republicans don't have to negotiate retaining IRA subsidies for certain existing projects and ending all new projects, instead “negotiating” not only retaining IRA subsidies for All(!) existing projects, at a cost of $400 billion and grid stability– But, hundreds of billions of dollars of IRA subsidies for new projects?
How subsidized energy halls use the “framework” to win Republican negotiations even before they begin
I began to realize this answer Tuesday when I saw a very strange number in the ways and means of ending the IRA’s potential savings: $600 billion.
Each remote trustworthy estimate for IRA costs is only around $1 trillion. How is the Joint Joint Tax Commission (JCT) consulting and consulting on potential savings when considering a complete termination?
Looking at the calculations and talking to insiders, I realized what was going on: When talking about “termination”, the methods and means are not really considering a full termination, which means termination subsidy Existing and new projects.
They're in The definition of “termination” which retains subsidies for all existing projects and terminates only new projects.
By redefining the “termination” to include subsidies for retaining existing projects, I strongly doubt lobbyists – even encountered negotiations before they even started.
The extremely important option to terminate subsidies for existing projects has never appeared!
Republican subsidy negotiations should be between freedom fighters who want to terminate all IRA subsidies and seekers who want to keep it as existing projects.
However, because the free fighters were deceived into the (mis) definition of “termination”, this left all existing IRA subsidies out of negotiation, so they lost negotiation even before they started.
At that time, those seeking subsidies might go crazy, demanding abundant subsidies for new projects. Note that their main point is that new subsidies are needed to avoid stranded projects. But that's not the case: Grandfather's existing projects took care of them.
An analogy here may help.
Imagine the parent of an unemployed 25-year-old trust fund baby (referred to as “Wind”) calls him a $25,000 monthly allowance (subsidy) that they give him more harm than good. They said, “We have to speak, we are cutting you off.” (Terminate)
Feng began to think about his choice. He thought: “Maybe I could have them subsidized for another six months until my lease ended.” I would argue that even though I knew they could cut me off at any time, I didn't expect it and I couldn't afford it, so I needed a little time to adjust.
But when he sat down with his parents (Parliament), it turned out he didn't need to worry.
They said sternly, “We are cutting you off.” “From 4 years on, you will no longer receive a $25,000 per month stipend.”
Feng could hardly believe his luck: his parents started the negotiations by giving him more than ever.
After winning, he kept his luck. “Mom! Dad! You can 'cut me out' like that! No more money starting at 29! That's too extreme! Be 'gent'! Let's make an 'earlingout'-20k at 20k at 30 at 30, and so on.”
Everyone was happy: Wind got his subsidy, and his parents said they had cut him off. They told friends at the country club: “It’s hard, but we stopped subsidizing the wind.”
Even if Wind will receive new subsidies for many years to come, he may manipulate them again when “phasing out” comes.
This is exactly what happened with the recent Republican proposal, which unnecessarily gives a lobbyist who is truly dedicated to existing projects but is happy to provide hundreds of billions of dollars for subsidies for new projects.
If any of Wind's parents' friends knew that “cut off” meant “keep the 25k/month allowance until he was 29 and then fell it down,” they would have the same feeling as I did in the way and means, announcing their “tax bill ended with a special giveaway”, “abolition” and “abolition of green corporate benefits were subsidized in the Democratic airflow”.
reality.
It's not too late to restructure the negotiations from the actual termination
When four members of the House Budget Committee announced Friday the opposition to “big, beautiful, Bill” and would not vote on it, it was largely due to the IRA subsidies, many Republicans, including President Trump, were frustrated by them.
I hear things like “You can’t get everything you want” and “If we get nothing, the whole IRA will stay in place.” Most importantly, what I hear, about the IRA, “It’s what we need to do to get the 'moderate' on board'.”
But this has never been true.
As President Trump has said many times, the starting point is to “terminate” all IRA subsidies for existing projects, obviously for new projects.
There is very strong evidence that “moderate” is often the code for “large constituencies in subsidized industries”, which would agree to the IRA deal, which blocks all IRA subsidies for new projects and provides grandfathers for existing projects, so much so that subsidized industries are really worried about losing a lot of money.
But, like the foundation’s baby Wyndam, when the negotiations begin, subsidized energy can be provided and called it “termination”, they ask for more and get it.
Now that negotiations have slowed down, this is the best time for the House (and of course the Senate) to renegotiate.
As President Trump has said many times, the starting point is to “terminate” all IRA subsidies for existing projects, obviously for new projects. Then, the Republicans in the negotiations must decide which existing projects should be able to retain their subsidies.
I strongly recommend the retention of nuclear energy, a victim of previous solar/wind subsidies and a serious, irrational regulation. And it may be necessary to retain biofuels for collective reasons for the vote (even if there is no economic or environmental or safety argument for this).
I strongly recommend cutting off or at least shrinking the solar/wind subsidies for existing projects as they pose a serious threat to the grid.
However, subsidies for new projects (all people, solar and wind projects) should be abandoned anyway.
I realize that people are frustrated that the bill will take longer, but we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and our fate in the grid over the next decade – we need to quickly improve and expand the grid to meet the survival needs of AI.
Here is what I suggest to the Republican Freedom Fighters say:
- Republicans have sacrificed natural gas and coal in a pledge that President Trump promised to “end a new green scam.”
- We, like the president, want to “terminate” these subsidies – turn them out immediately, so we save $1 trillion, no more wasting taxpayers' money, and no more harm to our power grid.
- We learned that some compromises may be needed, especially for those who have already invested under subsidies, so we are willing to work on projects that are largely ongoing.
- But we don't want to be in the wind and solar subsidies, because every year we continue them, our grid will be lowered.
- With this proposal, we can kill subsidies forever and truly save $800 billion with the “phase-out” proposal, which continues to continue new wind and solar subsidies through the entire Trump presidency (!) with its $500 billion savings based on wishful thinking.
Fortunately, some Republicans (including members of the Budget Committee held this process) began to adopt this approach.
Reading break at the energy conversation point
