Meet the Republicans who killed solar subsidies — after using them – E&E News by POLITICO

Legislative Actions Impacting Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Policy Shift and Contradiction with SDG 7 and SDG 13

A recently enacted law terminates a long-standing residential solar tax credit, representing a significant policy shift with direct implications for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This legislative action directly challenges progress toward SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by increasing the cost and reducing the accessibility of renewable energy for homeowners. Furthermore, by cutting over $484 billion in clean energy incentives while simultaneously increasing support for fossil fuels, the law undermines national efforts related to SDG 13 (Climate Action).

An investigation reveals that several lawmakers who voted to end these clean energy incentives have personally utilized them to install solar panels on their own properties. This highlights a discrepancy between their legislative actions and personal adoption of technologies that support SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Lawmakers’ Positions and Personal Use of Solar Technology

A review of property records and satellite imagery identified at least seven Republican lawmakers with rooftop solar panels. Three of these lawmakers confirmed using the federal tax credit they subsequently voted to eliminate.

• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.): Utilized the solar credit approximately 15 years ago for his home but defended its termination, stating it was never intended to be permanent.
• Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah): Benefited from the residential solar credit for his home, which also features a geothermal heat pump. Despite founding the Conservative Climate Caucus and promoting his home’s energy savings, he argued it was time for the subsidies to end.
• Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.): An early adopter of solar technology who lives off-grid, he acknowledged using the credit. While he voted against the new law, he supports the termination of all tax credits, including those for solar energy.
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): Has had solar panels on her Capitol Hill residence for a decade. While she could not recall if she used the tax credit, she acknowledged the significant utility savings and noted the administration’s clear intent to end support for such programs.
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.): Leases a rooftop solar system, which is indirectly subsidized by the investment tax credit for installers. He voted for the law, stating that while the phase-out was accelerated, the subsidies were destined to expire.

Analysis of Economic and Environmental Consequences

Impact on SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The accelerated termination of both the residential clean energy credit and the investment tax credit used by solar installers is projected to make solar energy significantly more expensive. This directly obstructs the goal of ensuring affordable and clean energy for all (SDG 7). Analysts predict that the cost of solar systems could increase by as much as 30%, placing them out of reach for many American families. This policy reversal hinders the development of sustainable and resilient infrastructure within communities, a key target of SDG 11.

Setbacks for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) in the Renewable Sector

The U.S. solar industry has experienced exponential growth, contributing to economic expansion and job creation in line with SDG 8. The new law is expected to severely blunt this progress.

1. Reduced Installations: Industry analysts forecast that solar installations over the next decade will be 17 percent lower than previously projected.
2. Industry Instability: The policy shift, combined with high interest rates, has increased financial pressure on the solar sector, with several large companies already filing for bankruptcy.
3. Economic Contraction: The slowdown in the solar industry threatens a key sector of the green economy, jeopardizing jobs and sustainable economic growth.

Policy Inconsistencies and the Future of Climate Action (SDG 13)

Prioritizing Fossil Fuels over Renewable Energy

A central contradiction in the new energy policy is the justification for eliminating renewable energy credits while maintaining and expanding subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Critics argue that while clean energy incentives are deemed temporary, tax credits for oil production have existed for over a century. The new law reinforces this disparity by:

• Establishing a new production tax credit for steel-making coal.
• Cutting royalty rates for coal mining and oil drilling on federal land.
• Easing restrictions on tax deductions for oil drilling costs.

These measures actively incentivize the production of fossil fuels, which are the primary drivers of climate change, thereby creating a significant obstacle to achieving SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Concluding Assessment

The legislative decision to prematurely terminate key solar energy tax credits represents a substantial reversal of policies aimed at fostering a sustainable energy transition. By impeding access to affordable clean energy for citizens and weakening the renewable energy industry, while simultaneously providing new support for fossil fuels, this law poses a direct challenge to the United States’ progress toward its commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 11, and SDG 13.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to energy policy, specifically the promotion and subsequent termination of subsidies for renewable energy (solar power) in contrast to the continued support for fossil fuels. This directly connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focused on energy, climate, and sustainable economic practices.

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The core of the article revolves around solar energy, a key component of clean energy. It discusses the affordability of solar panels for homeowners through tax credits and the economic impact of removing these subsidies, which relates to ensuring access to affordable and clean energy.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly links fossil fuels to “global warming” and discusses “climate programs” being cut. The policy decisions described—slashing clean energy incentives while boosting fossil fuel production—are central to national strategies for combating climate change.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The debate over subsidies is directly related to this goal. The article highlights the contradiction of ending incentives for clean energy while maintaining and adding new subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which is a key aspect of rationalizing inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of solar energy adoption, government subsidies, and climate policy, several specific SDG targets can be identified.

1. Under SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy):
   • Target 7.2: “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” The article focuses on the growth of rooftop solar installations in the U.S. (“Installations have exploded in popularity”) and the potential negative impact of new legislation on this growth (“The megalaw is likely to blunt the solar boom”). This directly concerns the share of renewable energy.
   • Target 7.a: “By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.” The article details a national policy—the residential clean energy tax credit—which is a financial mechanism designed to promote investment in clean energy technology (solar panels). The law ending this credit is a direct action against this target’s principle of promoting investment.
2. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The “megalaw” discussed in the article is a prime example of a national policy. However, by slashing “$484 billion in clean energy incentives” and including “provisions to increase the production of fossil fuels,” it represents a national policy that works against climate change mitigation measures.
3. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.c: “Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption…” The article directly addresses this by contrasting the termination of solar credits with continued support for fossil fuels. It states, “not only did they leave the century-old oil industry subsidies untouched, they gave new tax loopholes to the oil industry,” and mentions a subsidy that “dates back to 1913.” This highlights a failure to rationalize fossil-fuel subsidies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides both quantitative and qualitative information that can serve as indicators for measuring progress (or regression) toward the identified targets.

• For Target 7.2 (Increase share of renewable energy):
  • Implied Indicator: Growth in renewable energy capacity and adoption. The article provides specific data points: “Last year, the U.S. added over 50 gigawatts of solar capacity,” and “Seven percent of U.S. homes now have solar systems.” It also provides a projection that serves as a negative indicator: “Wood Mackenzie estimates that solar installations over the next decade would be 17 percent lower than it had previously forecast.”
• For Target 7.a (Promote investment in clean energy):
  • Implied Indicator: Amount of public financial support for clean energy. The article quantifies the financial incentives being removed. It mentions the “megalaw… slashed over $484 billion in clean energy incentives.” It also describes the residential credit as “refunding 30 percent of the cost of buying and installing panels,” which is a direct measure of financial support.
• For Target 12.c (Rationalize fossil-fuel subsidies):
  • Implied Indicator: Existence and value of fossil-fuel subsidies. The article provides qualitative evidence of these subsidies. It notes the “megalaw established a 2.5 percent production tax credit for steel-making coal, cut royalty rates for coal mining and oil drilling on federal land, and eased restrictions on tax deductions for oil drilling costs.” This points to the continuation and creation of new subsidies, which is a direct measure of non-compliance with the target.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: eenews.net