By Robert Bradley Jr.
“The continued reliance on ‘clean’ energy tax credits is a political crutch…. Those who have introduced this legislation … should be working to phase out these subsidies more quickly, not doubling down on them.” – Tom Pyle, AEA president (below)
A recent press release by the American Energy Alliance (the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research) called it an “Election-Year Betrayal to Reinstate Wind and Solar Subsidies.” For two energies touting their affordability for consumers, this is disingenuous. Socializing the cost-premium to taxpayers, and unnecessarily industrializing the pristine landscape (real ecologists, please stand up) is bad public policy. And with more than a dozen extensions of the “temporary tax credits” (15 for solar, 14 for wind), the mirage of competitiveness by an infant industry (not) is exposed.
The full press release follows:
WASHINGTON DC (4/29/26) – Last Thursday, a small group of Republican Congressmen, led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), introduced legislation to remove the deadlines placed under the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act on renewable tax credits, including the Wind Production Tax Credit and the Solar Investment Tax Credit.
American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle issued the following statement:
“The continued reliance on ‘clean’ energy tax credits is a political crutch that forces taxpayers to subsidize technologies that clearly cannot stand on their own. Those who have introduced this legislation – many of whom voted to pass the OBBB – should be working to phase out these subsidies more quickly, not doubling down on them.
“With all of these Members facing a battle for reelection, it’s surprising that subsidizing large corporations is their number one priority. Introducing legislation now to eliminate the tax credit deadlines is the obvious bait-and-switch we warned about a year ago, as these members push to revive preferential treatment for their favored industries. As I have said before, extending green giveaways on the backs of taxpayers is shortsighted and neglectful. The American people deserve better than the fast one these Members are trying to pull.”
AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:
- Tom J. Pyle, President
- Kenny Stein, Vice President of Policy
- Alex Stevens, Manager of Policy and Communications
Additional Background Resources From AEA:
- House Passes “Big, Beautiful” Budget Bill to Dismantle Costly Green Subsidies
- Coalition Letter to Treasury and IRS Suggesting Updated Guidance
- Subsidies vs. Tax Deductions: What IRA Defenders Get Wrong
- Rolling Back the IRA: House Bill Marks Key Victory on Energy Policy
- What The One Big Beautiful Bill Means for American Energy
News tip ….
more insanity …
The New York Times reported:
“On May 1, Amsterdam became the first capital city in the world to ban ads for fossil fuel products and meat. It is part of the city’s efforts to discourage consumption of goods linked with high carbon emissions.
Ads for airlines, cruises, and faraway destinations are no longer allowed, because they implicitly promote the burning of fossil fuels. Ads for beef, chicken, pork and fish are also banned, because of the environmental harms caused by animal agriculture.”
People here told me ads don’t work, so it shouldn’t matter anyways.
Cities should ban outdoor ads anyway. They are a blight and an eyesore on the cityscape.
One day I will meet a socialist who is capable of arguing honestly. LooserName won’t be it.
If ads didn’t work, nobody would buy them.
What people point out is that ads, unlike the whines of socialists, don’t create demand, they mostly take demand that already exists and point it to your products rather than your competitors.
As to your demand to ban outdoor ads, how typical of a socialist, putting your own wants and desire ahead of everyone else’s.
BTW, cityscapes are already eyesores, using one eyesore to hide another is a wash.
Ads are mere information, and other fairy tales you can tell yourself.
Not everyone lives in the US
Stop using FF you silly hypocrite!
Oh, I’m sure he doesn’t- as he’s not a low life hypocrite. 🙂
Ah yes, anything the party tells you not to believe is just a myth.
Sometimes I envy socialists, going through life without ever having to worry about thinking for yourself.
All big cities are eyesores. Some more so than others.
Since you believe CO2 is a poison, stop exhaling as you are poisoning everyone around you.
New York Mayor Mamdani wants us to embrace the warmth of collectivism. I wonder, is it his own experience, or does he know it only from fairy tales? I come from eastern Europe, I survived that warmth once, next time I might not get lucky.
Either ban all ads or don’t ban any.
The ignorance of the “energy ILLITERATE” leaders is shocking, as they NEVER explain how “energy” from wind turbines and solar panels can provide TRANSPORTATION FUELS:
· Jet fuel for military and commercial aircraft.
· Diesel fuel for trucks and construction equipment.
· Gasoline fuel for cars.
· Bunker fuel for merchant ships and cruise ships.
· Exotic fuels for the Space programs to explore outer space and conduct scientific research.
Energy “REALITY” is that wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products or transportation fuels for life as we know it.
Planes, ships, trucks, and cars run on transportation fuels manufactured FROM crude oil by multi-billion-dollar refineries.
The world has become dependent on the products and transportation fuels MADE FROM oil, the same products and transportation fuels that unreliable green electricity from Wind and Solar CANNOT make!
Add agriculture to the diesel entry.
Add natural gas for agriculture as well.
Logging machinery too.
Yeah, keep the US back even more.
America Will Pay Dearly for Its Energy Arrogance
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/02/opinion/trump-us-oil-crisis-strait-of-hormuz.html?unlocked_article_code=1.fVA.vN6E.vIQZ3kOX_TWY&smid=url-share
I see you are still convince that the laws of physics will one day be overturned by an act of parliament.
Why on earth would someone want to ban a power source that is always available and sometimes expensive, for one that is sometimes available and always expensive?
BTW, aren’t you the guy always proclaiming how cheap renewables are? If you were actually right for once, then renewables wouldn’t need to be subsidized in order to compete.
Your delusion truly knows no bounds.
Funny how China is so desperate to get oil from somewhere, isn’t it. !!
Its almost as if they need it ! 😉
World wide, fossil fuel derived energy continues to grow and makes up by far the bulk of energy usage……. and wind and solar are just a parasitic afterthought.
It should also be noted that wind and solar CANNOT be built without using fossil fuel is large amounts.
My gosh! That’s a scary graph. If that rate of increase in the use of fossil fuels, as shown during the past 49 years, were to continue at the same rate for the next 49 years, we could be in serious trouble.
One fool wrote that and another actually thinks it makes sense.
Yes, China is so dominant in wind and solar power that the country has to import large volumes of coal from Australia and oil from the Middle East. I wonder why they need so much of those resources. Math wasn’t your best subject, was it?
Show us the names of the congress members advocating to extend the tax credits and show us the industry contributions to these congress members.
For something that is supposed to be so cheap, it sure does need lots of Other People’s Money to stay in business.
The ‘renewable’ ITC has been allowed to lapse several times in the past. Every time it did, US wind installations went to zero. Market proof that wind isn’t economic. Provided as an illustration in one of the climate essays in ebook ‘Blowing Smoke’.
Yep.
How many years now have “progressives” been asserting that solar & wind generation can supply the electricity needs of current-day established communities.
~ 40 years or so?
And yet, there are no real-world examples of any towns, cities, counties, states or countries that have managed to operate 24 x 7 purely on wind / solar / batteries.
But the “progressives” keep banging the can about “renewables”.
Is it outright lying, or just abject naivete / stupidity?
Sorry, meant for Bob.
outright lying
both
all of the above
Okay wind and solar have been on training wheels long enough it is time to remove them.
Wind and Solar:
Bad for the grid. check
Bad for our wallets. check
Bad for the economy. check
Bad for America (or any country). check
Game, set, match.
Good at not producing any net energy. check
Good at making more CO2 than if they were never created in the first place. check
Bad for the environment
Toxic land fill contributions.
Those 5 turncoats will be joined by every democrat but it doesn’t matter, the Bill will never survive the guaranteed presidential veto. Over ride the veto? Not a chance.
Most probably don’t even care that much for ruinables and they know the bill won’t pass, so they can get points from all the alarmist voters out there for trying.