As Republicans look to broker a sweeping budget deal, top GOP leadership in the House of Representatives unveiled a series of cuts this week to the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) aimed at tackling climate change. This includes proposing to curtail tax credits for clean electricity generation and domestic clean technology manufacturing. To enact the proposed language would deal a swift blow to U.S. efforts to cut emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. It would also stifle a surge in manufacturing investment that has swept much of the country.
“It will come to a screeching halt without the credits,” says George Strobel, co-CEO at Monarch Private Capital, which finances solar projects. “That’s just the way it is.”
Since the language was announced on May 12, many Senate Republicans, who would need to approve the measure before it becomes law, have balked, fearing that such a pullback would kill jobs in their home states and harm American businesses. For that reason, they say, the language should represent a starting point, certain to be revised in the lengthy negotiations necessary to approve the changes. “Anything that comes over from the House, almost by law, we’ve got to redo,” Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski told reporters.
The debate on the fate of the clean technology tax incentives is likely to center on immediate concerns: on one side jobs and the implications for American businesses and, on the other, simple number crunching to fund other priorities including a continuation of broad corporate tax cuts. But jobs in congressional districts and U.S. carbon emissions represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the massive implications of a U.S. pullback from clean technology.
The U.S. is already behind in developing an economy around mature technologies—namely wind, solar, and electric vehicles. To nix IRA incentives without a considered replacement would effectively wave the white flag, acknowledging that the U.S. has no plausible way to catch up. Perhaps more significantly, abandoning the incentives would make it even more difficult for the U.S. to capture the market of early-stage technologies where the country can still compete—think of geothermal, advanced forms of nuclear energy, and hydrogen, to name a few.
All of this is of significant consequence for the shape of the global economy. China already dominates manufacturing in technologies like electric vehicles and, with an absent U.S., could do the same with future tech, too. All of which is to say: these negotiations will matter for decades to come. “To some extent, I think it’s hanging in the balance,” says Greg Bertelsen, CEO of the Climate Leadership Council, a non-profit that works at the intersection of climate and economic policy. “This is a critical period of time.”
To understand what enacting the proposed changes to tax incentives would mean, it’s helpful to sit with some numbers. In a research note Tuesday, the Rhodium Group said that the cuts would risk “a meaningful amount” of the $522 billion clean technology manufacturing investment already in the pipeline in the U.S. It could result in a greater than 70% decline in domestic clean energy deployment through 2035—and higher electricity prices for consumers and industry alike.
The clean technologies in question are part of a global market expected to total more than $100 trillion by 2050, according to a 2022 report from the Boston Consulting Group. And the ripples extend beyond clean tech: higher energy prices would make the U.S. a less attractive place for AI and manufacturing investments.
In the past, a U.S. pullback might have been enough to derail this global clean tech momentum. The U.S. is, after all, the world’s largest economy. But, in 2025, the rest of the world is less likely to shift gears in response to one administration.
A big reason for that is China. The country has become a manufacturing hub for a wide range of clean technologies and has facilitated their export around the world. And, in many cases, the clean technologies manufactured there have simply become better than traditional alternatives. Chinese electric vehicles, for example, are widely thought to offer a better experience at a lower price point than anything coming out of the U.S. or Europe. (Indeed, they’re quickly expanding not just in China but around the world.) More broadly, in parts of the developing world, solar power has become cheap enough that it’s the fastest and simplest way to rapidly electrify.
Since President Trump took office, I’ve spent much of my time outside of Washington, talking to policymakers and business leaders from around the world. As shocked as many have been by the Trump Administration’s assault on climate policy, few have expressed interest in following suit and instead continue to see opportunity in green investments.
And so the question for members of Congress is how much, if any, of that $100 trillion market they want to capture. The text proposed by GOP House leadership is just the start of the discussion and unlikely to become law in its current form, but for those looking to capture a share of the future of energy technologies it isn’t an encouraging one.
