Burning Tomorrow to Fund Today

The larger debate over the House-passed HB1 budget has moved to the Senate where another opposing front is complicating the already contentious discussion. While Democratic opposition has remained steady, new resistance is emerging from Republicans over proposed cuts impacting programs designed to assist lower income and seniors that will have a dramatic impact on the constituents of some red state legislators.

As that debate continues, this article will explore other potentially negative impacts by shining the spotlight onto a significant shift in recent U.S. energy policy—one that may stall or reverse recent gains in clean energy development, particularly in states like Texas. Tucked within the sweeping fiscal legislation are provisions (Sections 112006-112009, and 1120015) to phase out or eliminate federal tax credits for clean energy projects. While conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) have argued the credits distort energy markets and threaten grid stability, their critics say the rollback threatens far more: jobs, investment, and environmental progress across a number of Republican-led states.

The legislation presents a paradox for regions like Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia, which have seen major economic benefits from clean energy development spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the IRA has resulted in more than $185 billion in private investment and created over 160,000 new jobs since 2022, many in rural and economically struggling communities.

Clean Energy Growth at Risk

The tax credits targeted by HB1 have fueled the growth of wind, solar, and energy storage infrastructure nationwide. Texas leads the U.S. in wind generation and ranks near the top in solar and battery storage capacity. Projects made possible, or financially viable, through the IRA include Tesla’s Megapack battery facility in Brookshire, Hithium’s new $100 million battery assembly plant in Mesquite, and a 450 MW energy storage system by RWE AG in Fort Bend County.

But Texas is not alone. Other House lawmakers backing the HB1 rollback hail from states also riding the clean energy wave:

• Oklahoma: A top wind power producer, with rural counties reaping lease income and infrastructure jobs
• Georgia: Home to major EV and battery investments, including Hyundai’s $5.5 billion EV plant
• South Carolina and Tennessee: Rapid growth in battery and solar manufacturing hubs
• Colorado: A leader in renewables research and site of major solar installations and clean-tech startups

If HB1 becomes law, industry leaders warn, these states stand to lose billions in future investment. Planned projects could be delayed or scrapped, and supply chain growth—including domestic manufacturing of battery components—could stall. The U.S. also risks sabotaging its emerging leadership in fields like hydrogen research, pushing investments and jobs overseas at the very moment they could bolster American industrial strength.

Economic Setbacks Beyond Texas

Much of the push to repeal clean energy tax credits is tied to broader Republican efforts to finance permanent tax cuts proposed in HB1—cuts that disproportionately benefit corporations and higher income brackets. According to the Congressional Budget Office and fiscal analysts, removing or phasing out the IRA's clean energy incentives could reduce federal expenditures and partially offset revenue losses from the HB1 tax cuts—measures that would otherwise add significantly to the federal deficit unless accompanied by deep spending cuts. This financial justification is being used to support the rollback, but it raises deeper questions about priorities: Should economic development and energy innovation in red-state districts be sacrificed to preserve tax breaks for wealthier Americans?

Rep. Roy has made clear that he will not support HB1 unless clean energy tax credits are rolled back—a position echoed by several other House Republicans from states that have directly benefited from the growth of renewable industries. This raises another crucial question: How do these lawmakers justify a policy stance that threatens to undermine the economic progress within their own states? For Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and others, the loss of billions in clean energy investment, along with thousands of high-paying jobs and rural infrastructure improvements, would be a direct consequence of the repeal. Critics argue this disconnect between ideology and local impact could prove politically costly, particularly as constituents begin to recognize what’s at stake.

Supporters of the tax credit repeal argue it will save the federal government between $50–70 billion per year. But according to energy economists at BloombergNEF and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, that math doesn't hold. For every federal dollar invested through clean energy credits, the return in GDP growth, tax revenue, and consumer savings ranges from $2 to $4. These gains include job creation, lower electricity costs, and longer-term savings. These returns also include savings from reduced disaster recovery and healthcare costs, driven by cleaner air, improved water quality, and a slower pace of climate change. The net result: save $70 billion now, and forfeit a potential $140–$280 billion in downstream economic benefit.

In Oklahoma and Texas, wind and solar leases have helped stabilize rural economies. In Georgia and South Carolina, international firms have committed billions to build facilities that depend on IRA-related credits to remain profitable. Without those incentives, energy firms may scale back, refocus investments abroad, or revert to carbon-intensive energy sources.

Grid Reliability: A Broader Responsibility

Some political figures blamed renewables for the 2021 Texas blackout, though investigations found the primary failures occurred in fossil fuel infrastructure. The root cause was later attributed to poor weatherization and a lack of preparedness for extreme weather events. According to the final report from FERC and NERC, more than 80% of the outages were due to freezing of natural gas equipment, coal plant failures, and insufficient winter protection of fuel supplies. Texas's deregulated grid, which operates independently from the two major national grids, had no mandated reserve margin or comprehensive weatherization standards. This left the system vulnerable to cold snaps that have become more frequent and intense due to climate change. Despite repeated warnings from regulators following a similar event in 2011, comprehensive weatherization requirements were not implemented, underscoring that the root cause was not renewable energy, but inadequate foresight and policy planning.

Battery storage, now growing rapidly in Texas and elsewhere, is key to smoothing renewable energy variability. With more than 400 GW of storage needed by 2035, the IRA’s credits are viewed by experts as crucial to accelerating deployment and ensuring grid resilience.

Environmental Impacts and Trade-Offs

Concerns do exist around clean energy infrastructure—especially related to wildlife impacts from wind turbines, land use in solar farms, and recycling of battery components. However, studies from the U.S. Geological Survey and the DOE emphasize that these issues are increasingly mitigated through better siting, emerging technologies, and circular economy solutions. Notably, dual-use land strategies such as agrivoltaics have shown promise in enhancing both agricultural output and solar efficiency, benefiting crops and livestock alike.

Another element often underemphasized in the policy debate is the broad and well-established scientific consensus that climate change is amplifying the severity and frequency of extreme weather events. From prolonged droughts and wildfire seasons to deadly winter freezes and record-setting hurricanes, shifting tornado patterns and damaging hail events, the data points to a future of escalating environmental and economic disruption. Ignoring or defunding the mechanisms designed to mitigate these impacts—like clean energy deployment and grid resilience—puts both lives and infrastructure at risk. Scientists and economists alike warn that failure to act on this evidence may cost far more in recovery and adaptation than current investments in energy transition and preparedness.

The Bigger Picture: Shifting Economies

While much of the public debate has centered on the House, Senate support for similar provisions has emerged from a bloc of self-described fiscal hawks pushing aggressive deficit-reduction strategies. Senators like Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Rand Paul (R-KY) have echoed House demands to repeal or curtail clean energy tax credits as part of broader deficit-reduction strategies. Some have introduced companion legislation aimed at dismantling key provisions of the IRA. These senators represent states, like Texas and Georgia, that are already realizing economic growth from clean energy manufacturing, grid modernization, and research investment. Their support for the rescissions makes one wonder how their positions reconcile with the tangible economic benefits already realized by those they represent.

What is lost in this political discourse is that replacing fossil fuels is not a side effect of clean energy policy—it’s the intent.

The fossil fuel industry is responsible for a substantial share of pollution, negative health and environmental impacts across air, water and climate systems. The IRA’s incentives were designed to steer industrial strategy, environmental protection, and national security in the same direction.

From a national security perspective, the law helps reduce reliance on foreign-controlled energy supply chains—particularly in critical minerals and battery production, where dominance by geopolitical rivals like China has raised alarms in defense and intelligence communities.

By incentivizing domestic manufacturing and supply chains for energy technologies, the IRA strengthens energy independence and economic resilience, both of which are generally recognized as pillars of national security policy. Instead of relying on tariffs or mandates, the U.S. has been on the road to using market-based incentives, driving manufacturing back home and reducing our exposure to global energy price shocks.

In that light, HB1’s provisions could not only halt progress—but reverse it. And while Rep. Roy may be the most vocal, he is but one of a number of lawmakers whose districts are already benefiting from the clean energy surge. Paradoxically, each of them are lining up to vote away the very policies fueling local economic renewal. Whether they will bear the political cost for doing so remains to be seen.

Conclusion

As Congress debates the fiscal virtues of HB1, the economic and environmental stakes stretch well beyond high-profile programs like Medicare or Social Security. The proposed repeal of clean energy incentives doesn’t just redirect funding—it redistributes opportunity and risks pushing more investment and manufacturing offshore. It trades long-term economic development and climate resilience for short-term tax cuts that benefit those least in need. It dismisses decades of scientific warnings about the worsening impacts of climate change. And most critically, it threatens to pull the plug on a future where American leadership, innovation, and sustainability finally align. The cost of that decision—economically, environmentally, and morally—deserves far more scrutiny than it is receiving.