Early this morning, the Chamber voted 215-214 to approve a Budget Reconciliation bill with provisions that include a cancellation or elimination of elimination for everything that was in the inflation reduction law.
The measure, which is now directed to the Senate, is being described by clean and environmental energy groups as a monumental betrayal of the country that will cost jobs and increase electricity bills.
But the duration of the debate of the floor overnight, the energy parts of the bill were a last -moment idea for higher priority problems for the members of both parties, such as tax cuts, medical reviews and a desire or oppose the agenda of President Donald Trump.
Two months ago, 21 Republicans of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the president of the Ways & Means Committee of the Chamber about the need to preserve the tax credits of the IRA, warning against “premature credit phase or additional restrictive mechanisms.”
The leadership of the House of Representatives could calm some of these concerns when the draft bill showed that tax credits for biofuels would be preserved, among other changes.
But some camera republicans still opposed. Last week, 14 of the signers of the previous letter issued a joint statement affirming their support for the credits. This was a narrower number than the March letter, but it was more than enough to sink the bill if only some of them firm.
So how many of them ended up voting against the bill? Zero.
The representative Andrew Garbarino (RN.y.) lost the vote, but intended to vote for the bill. The other 13 people who issued the statement last week voted “yes.”
Before the vote, I spoke with David Spence, a professor at the University of Texas in Austin, to try to have an idea of the factors that were more likely to influence each member.
“They sentence pressure to accompany what Trump wants and what the leadership wants,” he said. “What the countercurrent presents to them is that for some of them what means giving up many jobs and money” that come from anger. “And for others, it’s how far they can be far from their principles.”
The background turned out to be weak.
Spence is the author of Climate of contempt: how to rescue the energy transition from the United States from electoral partisanA 2024 book about which I wrote last summer. He wrote a blog post in this month the factors that influence how Congress can vote on the measures related to IKRA.
He was paying a lot of attention to a debate within the debate among 38 Republicans who had signed a letter this month that witnesses “the urgent need to completely repeal the law to reduce inflation”, and also the 21, later 14, which they said. Pursued.
A separate letter on the merits of the bill: energy researchers describe it as an economic and environmental disaster. The Think Tank Energy Innovation Said This Week That The Bill Wolde Lead To The Loss Of 830,000 Jobs By 2030 and Increase Consumer Energy Costs By $ 16 billion in 2030. Any Discuse of Who Voted for It In The House and Who Might Bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bame, buted Like bike bike, buted like, buted, how, buted, I like it as I like how I like it as I like it as I like it as a bicycle when it comes to shape to the world of future generations.
Spence made a table that showed each of the members who signed the two letters, along with factors that can shape their views, such as the partisan inclination of their districts and the scope of the projects will go there.
Of the 38 people who ask for a complete repeal, 28 representative districts with a republican inclination of at least 10 points, which means that its district favored the Republican Party in at least 10 percentage points more as a whole, according to the general elections.
Among the 38 are some of the most open budget hawks of the Chamber, which are so committed to their ideology that they have been willing to go against the leadership of the camera and the Trump administration on issues related to spending. Examples include repetitions. Josh Brecheen from Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde de Georgia and Ralph Norman or South Carolina.
Only 10 of the 38 have projects financed by IRA in their districts, based on E2 data, a clean energy business group. Among them is Norman, whose district has six projects of this type that have led to commitments for 1,933 jobs.
One of those projects, a solar panel plant planned by Silfab Solar of Canada, has been controversial. Some residents have said that they are alarmed by the chemicals that would be used to make solar equipment.
Norman said Wednesday that his main concern is that he does not like subsidies.
“Adopting a total ‘energy’ energy strategy is crucial, and solar energy plays a role in that combination,” Norman said in a statement. “But allow me to be clear, that does not mean that we support endless subsidies. The real value of energy production lies in strengthening our infrastructure, rationalizing permits and reducing our dependence on foreign suppliers. We need to trust what it works where it works. Industry.”
According to the result, the chamber members who really hate the anger could win the internal debate about those who wanted to preserve some parts of the law, and was close.
The final negotiations were more than the bill is acceptable for the intransigent budget, which meant making the provisions of the Ira even forms for energy companies and gradually implementing.
Among the possible holders who voted for the bill was the representative. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Who was re-elected despite the fact that his district favored the Democrats by a limited margin in the presidential elections. He was part of the letter and the joint declaration that requested that tax credits be maintained.
Others who said they supported tax credits come from very republican districts that have important projects partly financed by anger. This includes the representative. Buddy Carter de Georgia, which has seven projects and 4,462 jobs in its district relationship with the law, and still voted for the bill.
“This is a bill at once in a generation that will unlock the complete national agenda of President Trump, which Georgians voted however in November,” Carter said in a statement after the vote. “With the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act We Are Unleashing Our Nations Energy Dominance, Securing the Border, Putting More Back into Hardworking America ‘Wallets, Kicking Illegal Immigrants Off Medicnts Off Medicants Off Medicant So That is Needable WHAUNABUNT, ANDING, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING ,, AND ENDING, AND ENDING, AND ENDING, AND EDITING, AND FINISHING.
The broader lesson was that the power of partisanship was overvalued almost everything else.
This gives credit to an opinion that I hear a lot of base environmental defenders: the only way to approve and maintain strong climatic and energy policies is to choose Democrats because even the Republicans who care about the issues will be tea and final.
But this is not yet. Four Republicans of the Senate have raised Conerns on the elimination of fiscal energy credits. If the Senate makes any change, the camera must vote again.
Meanwhile, entire industries, including solar energy, wind, batteries, electric vehicles and energy efficiency, may need to throw their business plans, discard investments and prepare for the close future challenging.
This article originally appeared in Inside Climate News. It is published again with permission. Register for your bulletin here.