Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) spoke on the House Floor to highlight ten reasons why we must phase out tax credits for wind and solar energy. She urged her colleagues in Congress to prioritize grid security and eliminate the incentives that are distorting energy markets and flooding them with weather-dependent resources when grid operators are calling for dispatchable, always-available power.
A transcript of the speech is provided below the video.
Mr. Speaker,
As we consider the critical reforms in the reconciliation process, I rise today to make the case for why we must eliminate the generous federal subsidies for wind and solar energy, paid for by taxpayers.
Specifically, the production and investment tax credits known as the PTC and ITC.
By continuing to incentivize these intermittent energy sources with generous tax credits, we’re distorting energy markets, sending the absolute wrong signal to investors, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money.
We must stop providing generous incentives that run contrary to the types of energy sources we need, and tonight I want to highlight ten reasons why:
Yes, you hear me right. There are ten good reasons to eliminate these incentives.
First, the cost to taxpayers is enormous. Over the next decade, these subsidies are projected to cost up to $900 billion.
Second, these subsidies are driving instability in our power grid. Right now, two-thirds of the country is at risk of not having enough power to meet demand.
That’s not a few years from now, that’s not a long-term problem. That is today. Keep in mind the power needed for AI is growing exponentially, further creating a more difficult problem for us.
Third, grid operators are asking for dispatchable resources—such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear—yet we continue to incentivize the opposite.
These reliable resources are being prematurely retired, and we’re not replacing them with the technologies we can count on around the clock. This is not a political statement—it’s simply a matter of physics.
We don’t need to imagine the consequences of retiring these baseload energy resources. Spain, just a few weeks ago, experienced nationwide blackouts—and their economy came to a grinding halt.
Spain relied on wind and solar for 80 percent of its power, which is ultimately what jeopardized their grid. This should be a wake-up call for policymakers everywhere.
That brings us to reason #4. Despite the warning signs and the cries from grid operators, 95 percent of the projects waiting to connect to our grid in the U.S. are wind and solar—95 percent.
That’s not because of market demand for wind and solar—it’s because of the very generous subsidies that this body and the rest of Washington continues to provide for these resources. This artificial growth is making it harder for reliable baseload generation to connect to the grid.
#5, these same incentives are distorting the market. Eliminating these subsidies would allow private investment to go toward other technologies that are more aligned with what our grid actually needs.
As I mentioned earlier, with the rise of AI, we’re going to need a lot more power. We should be sending the right market signals to bring the power on that will actually meet the demand to power the future.
#6, wind and solar are no longer emerging technologies. They are mature. They are widely developed. Wind and solar now account for 17 percent of our electric generation.
The cost of these technologies has also dropped dramatically. And this is the 7th reason to phase them out.
Wind and solar technologies have less overhead, longer lifespans, and higher profits than they did when these credits were introduced nearly 30 years ago in the 1990s.
For example, the cost of solar has decreased more than 80 percent since 2010. Truly, the market is more than capable of supporting continued growth—without subsidies.
And as if that isn’t compelling enough, there are yet more reasons to phase out these subsidies.
#8, their efficiency has increased substantially. Today’s wind turbines and solar panels are far more productive than they were even a decade ago.
When I first started permitting these projects 12 years ago, the capacity factor for wind was around 25 percent. Today, that average capacity factor is up to 40 percent—and in some places even 50 percent. Clearly, these are proven technologies.
#9, the true cost of installing wind and solar is often misrepresented. Advocates routinely leave out the cost of the massive transmission infrastructure needed to connect remote wind and solar projects to population centers.
They also ignore the cost of backup generation needed to keep the lights on at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. The low-cost claims don’t account for these expenses.
But rest assured, utility customers still pay for them.
And last but not least, eliminating these subsidies is fully consistent with an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I believe in competition. Wind and solar are viable, market-proven, widely available technologies.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to let them compete and succeed without the help of federal taxpayers.
Phasing out these tax credits will save taxpayers billions of dollars, help restore reliability to our power grid, and help deliver on the promise of the One Big Beautiful bill to make American stronger, safer, and more competitive.
Let’s retire these subsidies permanently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
