Updated Senate bill slashes wind and solar incentives – and adds a new tax
An updated draft of the Senate's megabill text slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy – and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects.
The initial draft released by Senate Republicans earlier this month cut the credit for any wind and solar projects that did not 'begin construction' by certain dates, while the latest version bases incentives on when projects actually begin producing electricity — a much higher bar to clear.
The first draft gave any project that began construction this year full credit, any project that began construction next year 60 percent credit and any project that began construction in 2027 20 percent of the credit, before they were phased out thereafter.
The new legislation instead says that the credits will only apply to facilities that begin producing electricity before the end of 2027.
In addition, it imposes a new tax on some wind and solar projects that are placed in service after 2027.
The projects that will be taxed if a certain percentage of the value of their components come from China.
The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including renewable energy. These subsidies were expected to massively reduce the U.S.' planet warming emissions.
The GOP's cuts to the credits are expected to severely curtail those gains.
If they pass, the cuts represent a win for the party's right flank, which has pushed for major cuts to the credits, and a loss for it's more moderate wing which has called for a slower phaseout.
The renewables lobby slammed the changes as hampering the sector.
'In what can only be described as 'midnight dumping,' the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry. It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a written statement.
'These new taxes will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm Oppenheimer's grandson. We can still go from crisis to conversation on Iran.
Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. So I'm proposing something unconventional. The war in Iran has been terrifying. It pushed the threat of nuclear weapons back to the forefront of global consciousness. And yet – somehow – we've made it through this conflict in better shape than many feared, assuming the ceasefire holds. We now have an unexpected opportunity to turn this narrow escape into something bigger: a chance to expand global peace and security. Like many, I have serious criticisms of how we got here. A nation that has never signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, Israel, used its undeclared nuclear status as leverage to launch a war against a country, Iran, that has no nuclear weapons and has submitted to international inspections. This directly sabotaged promising diplomatic efforts between Iran and America. When the United States entered the conflict with a military strike June 21, Americans braced for another endless war in the Middle East. And yet, remarkably, we've arrived at a ceasefire. That outcome wasn't inevitable. It required restraint from Tehran and surprising restraint from Washington. Credit must be given where it's due: President Donald Trump played a central role in stopping the escalation, using his signature unconventional diplomacy. That success offers a model ‒ if we're willing to learn from it. Lesson 1: Stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons fuel Since the first atomic breakthrough, one truth has remained: Safety in the nuclear age requires cooperation ‒ even with adversaries. Nuclear science is not a secret that can be kept, it's a fact of nature. From J. Robert Oppenheimer onward, scientists knew the only real safeguard was shared control of enriched uranium that can be used for bombs. We need more cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation ‒ not just in Iran, but everywhere. Gen. Wesley Clark: This is the moment for American leadership in Middle East. We can't miss it. Lesson 2: Strengthen the institutions that have kept us alive The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is more than a piece of paper. It is the backbone of the global nuclear order. It has slowed the spread of weapons, legitimized peaceful nuclear energy and built mechanisms for trust. The International Atomic Energy Agency ‒ through science and diplomacy, not force ‒ upholds this system. We must double down on supporting countries that respect these rules and hold accountable those, like Israel and North Korea, that operate outside them. The real nuclear threat before us The dangerous gamble to start a war in order to stop a single weapon from being developed must not become the global standard. Because the far greater danger isn't Iran or any one rogue nation ‒ it's a nuclear exchange between superpowers. That remains the true and growing risk, and it could even happen by accident. A false alarm, a cyberattack or a miscommunication could trigger an unstoppable chain reaction. Once missiles fly among the United States, Russia and China, no leader or even unconventional diplomacy can stop it. There won't be time. Opinion: Our nuclear weapons are much more powerful than Oppenheimer's atomic bomb So what can we do? We build on what has worked. Trump's success in brokering a ceasefire should now be expanded ‒ first to end the Gaza conflict, and then to revive stalled denuclearization dialogue. Trump has previously called for nuclear talks among America, China and Russia. That is exactly the right idea ‒ and this could be the moment. Charles Oppenheimer: I support President Trump's pursuit of nuclear diplomacy Some will call that impossible. They'll point to rising tensions, trade wars, proxy conflicts. They'll say the moment isn't right. But history teaches the opposite: It is precisely in moments of danger that real diplomacy must begin. Waiting for peace before negotiating peace is a contradiction. This is a time for bold action – of the Nobel Peace Prize variety – if done right. We are still living under a nuclear arms strategy called mutual assured destruction. Even its acronym ‒ MAD ‒ tells us how unsustainable it is. The threat is too vast, too fast and too complex for any one nation or leader to control. Most of us, as individuals, feel powerless in the face of such a system. But we're not without agency. Some people do have real influence, and that includes the leaders of the United States, China and Russia. They cannot be expected to make unilateral concessions, but they can be expected to sit down and talk. I'm not president. But I'm doing what I can ‒ using the name and ideas of my grandfather J. Robert Oppenheimer to push for a safer future. So I'm proposing something unconventional: an 'Oppenheimer Dinner,' inviting representatives from Washington, Beijing and Moscow to a private, off-the-record dialogue about how to reduce the risk of real nuclear war ‒ and discuss the positive side of nuclear energy. Dialogue alone won't solve the problem. But it's where every solution begins. It also allows us to talk about the hopeful side of nuclear science. The same technology that could destroy civilization can also power it, giving us clean energy, medical breakthroughs and global prosperity. It's up to us to choose which future we want ‒ and there is no time like the present. 'We can have each other to dinner. We ourselves, and with each other by our converse, can create not an architecture of global scope, but an immense, intricate network of intimacy, illumination, and understanding.' — J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1958 Charles Oppenheimer is the founder and co-executive director of the Oppenheimer Project. He is the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the Manhattan Project.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
The CEO building the 'Ikea of factories' wants to democratize semiconductor production
In his 1986 book "Engines of Creation," engineer K. Eric Drexler — often called the godfather of nanotechnology — made a prediction. "The coming era of molecular machines will mean the end of many limits: the limit of scarcity, the limit of slow development, the limit of ignorance enforced by the lack of tools," he wrote. Reading those words a few years later, when he was 16, Matthew Putman started thinking. "Our bodies work as these little micro-machines where you have ribosomes and enzymes and things that are working and replicating and making things all the time, but our factories work the way that they've worked for the last hundred years," Putman told Business Insider he thought at the time. He wondered how a world would look "where you don't have large assembly lines, you don't have smokestacks, you instead just make things so perfectly," he said. Putman became fascinated by the possibilities of machines that are "atomically precise." It wasn't until the recent AI boom, however, that the idea really took off with fabrication plants. Putman, now 50, is the CEO of Brooklyn-based Nanotronics, which he cofounded with his father in 2010. The company started out building microscopes and tools to detect defects in semiconductors, among other materials. Now, it builds small, modular semiconductor manufacturing plants called Cubefabs. While the biggest fabs in the country are often millions of square feet in size, Cubefabs measure anywhere from 25,000 square feet for the smallest units up to about 60,000 square feet for a full-sized fab. They're adaptable, and the company says they can be assembled in under a year in most places on Earth. They're also smart — thanks to the power of AI — so they can self-monitor their production and improve in real time, the company said. And they're relatively cheap, costing a minimum of $30 to $40 million, compared to large fabs that can cost billions to build. With President Donald Trump back in the White House and pledging to reinvigorate US manufacturing, a new opening has emerged for Nanotronics — even as sweeping tariffs challenge companies that produce or depend on semiconductors. Putman says that in the long term, the tariffs will bolster domestic innovation. Tariffs "should be a wake-up call — a push to create something better than what either the US or China has done before," he told BI in a video interview from the Nanotronics headquarters in Brooklyn Navy Yard. "If we get this right, American innovation won't just protect our future — it could help redefine global progress in a way that benefits humanity." Putman says compact, modular factories are exactly that. "Your factory should be incredibly small," Putman said, gesturing to the room behind him. "Eventually, it could be the size of this room." The 'Ikea of factories' Semiconductor manufacturing has surged since the launch of ChatGPT. Global annual revenue for the industry is expected to reach more than $1 trillion by 2030, according to McKinsey & Company. In the US, despite legislation subsidizing domestic semiconductor production, fabs are more expensive to construct and maintain than those built in places like mainland China and Taiwan, McKinsey says. The US also suffers from a shortage of qualified labor, which can delay construction timelines, according to the firm. To attempt to solve some of these issues, Nanotronics teamed up with architecture firm Rogers Partners and engineering firm Arup to design compact factories. Each one runs with 37 people, but Putman says the ideal setup is four factories — about 180 workers total — which allows them to scale up without halting production. "It's like the Ikea of factories," Putman said. The company has raised $182 million to date from firms including Peter Thiel's Founders Fund. Cubefabs can be used to produce chips that span a range of uses across electronics applications, electric vehicles, and photodetectors for cube satellites, Putman said. "The more precise we make things, the more abundance we bring to the world," he said. "The business of making things grow bigger and bigger starts small — molecular small." Building on the foundational research of scientist Philippe Bove — now chief scientist at Nanotronics — the company also uses gallium oxide — a type of semiconductor that can handle more power than traditional materials like silicon — to produce advanced chips. The company plans to have its first installation set up in New York within the next 18 months. "These fabs do not require billions in capital expenditure or large populations of highly trained workers," Putman told BI in a follow-up email. "The vision is that any region — whether in the Global South or the United States — should be able to produce what it needs locally."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Voters Are Losing Faith With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Once the cornerstone of his political strength, President Donald Trump's base is showing signs of erosion. The latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted June 20-23 among 1,590 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating among those who voted for him in 2024 stands at 83 percent, while 14 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of +69 points, down from +80 last month. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters on Air Force One while in flight from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, on June 24, 2025. Alex Brandon/AP Last month's poll was conducted before Trump carried out airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel was agreed to the same day, though tensions remain high. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have since accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatened to strike Tehran in response—an accusation Tehran denies. The rapid escalation has spotlighted the risks of deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and highlighted the evolving nature of American foreign policy under Trump, who once promised to protect "America's vital interests" without engaging in "endless wars" overseas. The strikes appear to have triggered a shift in public attitudes—even among Republicans—with polls showing signs of declining support for Trump's agenda. Additional data from the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted June 21–23 among 1,139 respondents, reinforces the trend: 84 percent of Republicans said they approve of the president's job performance, down from 90 percent last month. The latest poll had a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points. Political analysts say Trump's declining approval ratings are tied to a growing disconnect between his actions and voter priorities—particularly after his recent military intervention in Iran. Thomas Gift, founding director of the University College London Centre on U.S. Politics, told Newsweek Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities has unsettled many in the MAGA movement who expected him to avoid foreign entanglements. "Trump's recent actions in Iran have done little to reassure the MAGA base that he'll steer clear of another endless war in the Middle East," Gift said, noting that even former chief strategist Steve Bannon has warned the conflict could escalate into "U.S. boots on the ground." Gift added that a core tenet of Trump's 2024 message was that "'America First' meant staying out of foreign conflicts," but now "that promise is starting to ring hollow." Peter Loge, a political communications professor at George Washington University and former Obama advisor, told Newsweek Trump's approval ratings are falling for broader reasons as well. "Trump's numbers are down because that's how public opinion works," Loge said. "He is pursuing policies people don't like, while ignoring things people care about." He pointed to "thermostatic politics"—the idea that voters often react against the party in power, even when it does what they asked for—as a key factor. "Trump started in a weak position with a lot of soft support," Loge explained. "That he is getting less popular is unsurprising." Loge added that many of Trump's headline policies—such as sending troops into American cities or escalating military conflicts abroad—don't match what most voters are asking for. "Most voters mostly want things to work," he said. "They want to be able to afford gas and groceries, pay their medical bills, and know their kids have a shot at a good future." Instead, Trump's agenda—threatening Medicaid, risking inflation with tariffs, and engaging in costly foreign conflicts—"either ignores what most voters care about, or threatens to make those things worse." "President Trump likes people to pay attention to Donald Trump," Loge said. "Voters would rather pay attention to their families." It comes as polls show that a majority of Americans do not approve of U.S. airstrikes in Iran. The YouGov/Economist poll found just 29 percent think the U.S. should be carrying the strikes, while 46 percent said it should not. The Washington Post found modestly higher support for the U.S. military bombing Iran. In a poll, 25 percent of adults supported "the U.S. military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while 45 percent were opposed. The poll also found that 82 percent of Americans were either "somewhat" or "very" concerned about getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran. Analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris showed that 21 percent of Americans said last week that they supported U.S. involvement in Iran, while 57 percent opposed. And it seems that Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities has exposed deep divisions within the party. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky called Trump's move unconstitutional. "This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie posted on X, formerly Twitter. Far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Trump ally, struck a cautious tone after the bombing, posting on X: "Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East." But just 30 minutes before the announcement of the airstrikes, Greene voiced frustration: "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war... Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer." Former Trump adviser and War Room podcast host Steve Bannon was even more direct in his criticism, blasting the president for publicly thanking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the operation. "It hasn't been lost... that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank," Bannon said. Bannon, who has long opposed U.S. military involvement in Iran, questioned Trump's reliance on intelligence reportedly provided by Israel, rather than U.S. sources. "I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck," he said, and described Trump's post-strike remarks as "very open-ended," adding: "I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of MAGA wanted to hear." While Bannon insisted that "the MAGA movement will back Trump," he noted growing discomfort with the president's increasingly hawkish posture, recalling that opposition to "forever wars" was a defining issue in Trump's 2016 campaign. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars," Bannon told an audience in Washington days before the strike. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, also appeared to diverge from the president. Trump recently criticized the intelligence community's assessment that Iran had not taken the political decision to build a nuclear bomb, saying they were "wrong." Gabbard has denied any serious disagreement. Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing influencer, warned ahead of the strikes that Trump risked alienating his base. "Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war," he said. But after the strikes, Kirk appeared to soften, reposting a clip of Vice President JD Vance praising the pilots involved. "They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine... Whatever our politics, we should be proud," Vance said. Nonetheless, polls suggest that Trump's MAGA base is largely supportive of the strikes. A recent J.L. Partners poll showed that support for U.S. military action against Iran is strongest among Trump's most devoted base. Two-thirds of self-identified "MAGA Republicans" (65 percent) back U.S. strikes, far surpassing support among "Traditional Republicans" (51 percent). Most Republican voters also view Israel's war with Iran as a shared American cause, with 63 percent saying "Israel's war is America's war"—a figure that rises to 67 percent among MAGA Republicans. And a new Washington Post/George Mason University survey finds Republican support for a strike rising from 47 percent to 77 percent. For comparison, political independents moved 10 points in Trump's direction, and Democrats stayed put. For pollster G Elliott Morris, there is a simple explanation for this. "Many Republicans do not hold isolationism as a value above their partisanship," he wrote in a blog post. "When push comes to shove, party loyalty and following the leader override some abstract commitment to staying out of foreign conflicts. If Trump decides that the MAGA movement should abandon isolationism altogether and invade Iran, then a large chunk of the movement will follow suit. The speed and scale of the shift in Republican opinion after Trump's decision to bomb Iran is a textbook example of this." He continued: "Of course, partisanship is not just a Republican phenomenon, but Trump's gravitational pull on opinion is unlike the force wielded by any other politician." Aaron Evans, president of Winning Republican Strategies, summed up why Republicans support Trump's actions in Iran. "Americans know President Trump did exactly what he promised: he stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons without dragging us into another endless war," Evans told Newsweek. "While Democrats rushed to scream 'World War III,' Trump exposed their weakness and lack of seriousness on foreign policy. He showed strength, poise, and strategic discipline—doing what others only talk about: keeping nukes out of the hands of a terror regime while securing peace through strength. The media can spin, but voters see the truth. President Trump acted with precision, avoided war, and protected American lives. He's a man of action, not talk—and that's exactly why his base remains strong." However, the most recent YouGov/Economist poll found that only 47 percent of Trump 2024 voters think the U.S. should take active part in world affairs, while 37 percent disagreed and 19 percent said they are not sure.
