“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” This adage, often attributed to economist Milton Friedman, rings particularly true today concerning energy subsidies. Time and again, subsidy mechanisms like tax credits and production mandates are introduced with specific expiration dates or phase-down schedules, framed as temporary boosts for nascent technologies or short-term solutions to specific problems. Yet, history shows these policies are not temporary, with Congress granting “temporary” extensions year after year after year.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly considering a “phase down” of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) green energy subsidies. But history shows there is no such thing as a “phase down” of these policies because they will inevitably be resurrected. If the goal is to protect taxpayers from never-ending subsidies and protect the electric grid from the destabilizing influence of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC), these tax credits need to be ended now.
The IRA’s Tax Credits are Very Expensive
Analysis from the Treasury Department shows that the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for wind and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for solar are already the most expensive energy-related tax expenditures, projected to cost $31.4 billion in 2024 alone. Since 2015, their 10-year cost has grown 21-fold, and by 2034, they’re expected to make up more than half of all energy tax provisions.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) put these subsidy programs into overdrive, extending their timelines and ensuring that the American energy economy becomes a politically driven race to the bottom. The Cato Institute projects that the IRA’s total green energy subsidies will potentially reach between $2.04 trillion and $4.67 trillion by 2050. These figures reveal how dramatically the original 10-year cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) missed the mark. Independent analyses, including a $1.2 trillion estimate from Goldman Sachs, land well within Cato’s projected range and suggest the actual cost over the next decade could be roughly triple what the CBO projected when the IRA was passed. Additionally, the Tax Foundation estimates that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy tax credits could return $851 billion to federal coffers over the next decade. Supporting this, an EY analysis finds that cutting the EV tax credits alone could save about $300 billion between 2026 and 2035.
The IRA’s Tax Credits Harm the Reliability of the Electric Grid
However, these figures don’t explain the total harm of the IRA. These tax credits distort electricity markets to the point where wholesale power prices can turn negative, forcing other generators to pay the grid to accept their electricity. While wind and solar producers still profit thanks to the subsidy, conventional power plants like coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities operate at a loss under these conditions. As a result, many of these baseload generators have been forced to shut down, even as electricity demand is expected to climb due to the rapid growth of AI data centers and manufacturing. This loss of reliable generation capacity is straining supply just as demand surges, leaving major energy users scrambling to secure dedicated power sources.
“Temporary” Tax Credits are never Temporary–A History
Examining the histories of the Wind Production Tax Credit, the Solar Investment Tax Credit, the Biomass-based Diesel Tax Credit, and federal Electric Vehicle (EV) tax credits reveals a clear pattern: policies designed to sunset will find ways to endure.
The initial designs of these subsidy programs originally included plans to phase them out:
In each case, the architecture pointed towards a limited duration, but all of these programs have been expanded and extended multiple times, and they all continue to exist today.
Initially set to expire in 1999, the wind PTC was extended in 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2021. The 2016 extension of the PTC was even structured as a phase down, with the value of the PTC stepping down each year by 20% for five years, supposedly to terminate then. However, the IRA extended the PTC in a way that was perhaps the most egregious. The IRA creates a “phase out” of the PTC starting in 2035 or two years after the U.S. electricity sector achieves a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 2022 baseline, whichever date is later. The U.S. electricity sector will not meet that target by 2035 (or likely ever), making the PTC the perfect encapsulation of the phase-down fallacy.
Likewise, the solar ITC’s phase-down has been repeatedly delayed and reset, most recently by the IRA, pushing its scheduled expiration well into the 2030s. The early history of the solar ITC included 7 laws and 6 extensions:
More recently, since 1992, there have been 9 extensions and modifications to the solar ITC:
The biomass-based diesel tax credit, which received a comparatively stingy 2-year extension from the IRA, has seen 6 extensions since its creation in 2004. Additionally, the EV tax credit’s manufacturer cap was eliminated by the IRA, replaced with a new set of complex requirements and a 2032 expiration date – essentially restarting the “phaseout” clock under different rules.
Why the IRA Energy Subsidies May Never Go Away—Unless We Act Now
If federal energy subsidies aren’t repealed now, they may never be. The longer these programs remain in place, the more politically entrenched they become, with growing coalitions of beneficiaries and justifications working to ensure their survival. There are four factors that will ensure these programs survive any alleged plans to phase them down.
First, consider path dependency and vested interests. Once projects like wind farms, solar arrays, ethanol plants, and electric vehicle factories are built with the help of subsidies, industries quickly form around them—and so do powerful lobbying groups. Trade associations like the American Clean Power Association (formerly the American Wind Energy Association), the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association have become highly effective at securing extensions for the subsidies that benefit their members. The political math often favors them: concentrated benefits for a few are easier to defend than diffuse costs borne by millions of taxpayers or consumers.
Second, the purpose of these subsidies keeps evolving. The history of American energy policy is rife with examples of shifting policy rationales that serve entrenched interests but hurt the American people. Initially pitched as temporary boosts for fledgling technologies or ways to enhance energy security, today they’re justified by broader political goals—chief among them, fighting climate change. Rural job creation, farm income support, domestic manufacturing, and even labor standards have since been added to the list. This ability to adapt to shifting justifications for abysmal policies allows subsidy schemes to persist.
Third, the “market stability” argument has become a potent tool. Advocates routinely warn that letting subsidies lapse would disrupt investments, create boom-bust cycles, and slow progress. These fears often prompt Congress to extend incentives for just a few more years, with vague promises of phasing them out later. In practice, such “phase-downs” serve as political cover—buying time for the conversation to shift and for another round of extensions to be passed. Most importantly, there is nothing “stable” about an economy organized around political favors and rent-seeking.
Finally, these programs are not just extended—they’re reinvented. Today’s subsidy regime is far more complex and embedded than it was a decade ago. Tax credits have evolved into hybrid structures, offering cash grants or bonus incentives for meeting certain labor or sourcing requirements. Electric vehicle credits now hinge on where cars are assembled, what materials go into their batteries, and even who’s buying them. These adaptive mechanisms don’t just prolong subsidies—they hardwire them into broader industrial and climate policy frameworks, making repeal even harder.
While supporters claim these incentives bring long-term stability to energy markets, they ignore the broader distortionary effects. Propping up industries regardless of real market demand creates economic inefficiencies and misallocates capital, risks that grow the longer subsidies remain disconnected from actual consumer needs.
The Road Ahead
The evidence is clear: so-called “temporary” energy subsidies rarely go away. Instead, they’re repeatedly extended, rebranded, or repurposed—turning into permanent fixtures of federal policy. The phase-out narrative has become little more than a political smokescreen, used to deflect criticism while paving the way for future extensions.
The Inflation Reduction Act represents the latest and most sweeping expansion of this dynamic. The cost is staggering, the market distortions are mounting, and the promised benefits remain largely speculative. Meanwhile, entrenched interests and evolving justifications—from climate change to job creation—continue to shield these subsidies from meaningful scrutiny. If lawmakers are serious about restoring fiscal responsibility and ending the cycle of politicized energy policy, they must reject the comforting fiction of the phase-out. The only way to truly rein in wasteful, distortionary spending is through full and permanent repeal.
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” This adage, often attributed to economist Milton Friedman, rings particularly true today concerning energy subsidies. Time and again, subsidy mechanisms like tax credits and production mandates are introduced with specific expiration dates or phase-down schedules, framed as temporary boosts for nascent technologies or short-term solutions to specific problems. Yet, history shows these policies are not temporary, with Congress granting “temporary” extensions year after year after year.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly considering a “phase down” of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) green energy subsidies. But history shows there is no such thing as a “phase down” of these policies because they will inevitably be resurrected. If the goal is to protect taxpayers from never-ending subsidies and protect the electric grid from the destabilizing influence of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC), these tax credits need to be ended now.
The IRA’s Tax Credits are Very Expensive
Analysis from the Treasury Department shows that the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for wind and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for solar are already the most expensive energy-related tax expenditures, projected to cost $31.4 billion in 2024 alone. Since 2015, their 10-year cost has grown 21-fold, and by 2034, they’re expected to make up more than half of all energy tax provisions.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) put these subsidy programs into overdrive, extending their timelines and ensuring that the American energy economy becomes a politically driven race to the bottom. The Cato Institute projects that the IRA’s total green energy subsidies will potentially reach between $2.04 trillion and $4.67 trillion by 2050. These figures reveal how dramatically the original 10-year cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) missed the mark. Independent analyses, including a $1.2 trillion estimate from Goldman Sachs, land well within Cato’s projected range and suggest the actual cost over the next decade could be roughly triple what the CBO projected when the IRA was passed. Additionally, the Tax Foundation estimates that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy tax credits could return $851 billion to federal coffers over the next decade. Supporting this, an EY analysis finds that cutting the EV tax credits alone could save about $300 billion between 2026 and 2035.
The IRA’s Tax Credits Harm the Reliability of the Electric Grid
However, these figures don’t explain the total harm of the IRA. These tax credits distort electricity markets to the point where wholesale power prices can turn negative, forcing other generators to pay the grid to accept their electricity. While wind and solar producers still profit thanks to the subsidy, conventional power plants like coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities operate at a loss under these conditions. As a result, many of these baseload generators have been forced to shut down, even as electricity demand is expected to climb due to the rapid growth of AI data centers and manufacturing. This loss of reliable generation capacity is straining supply just as demand surges, leaving major energy users scrambling to secure dedicated power sources.
“Temporary” Tax Credits are never Temporary–A History
Examining the histories of the Wind Production Tax Credit, the Solar Investment Tax Credit, the Biomass-based Diesel Tax Credit, and federal Electric Vehicle (EV) tax credits reveals a clear pattern: policies designed to sunset will find ways to endure.
The initial designs of these subsidy programs originally included plans to phase them out:
In each case, the architecture pointed towards a limited duration, but all of these programs have been expanded and extended multiple times, and they all continue to exist today.
Initially set to expire in 1999, the wind PTC was extended in 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2021. The 2016 extension of the PTC was even structured as a phase down, with the value of the PTC stepping down each year by 20% for five years, supposedly to terminate then. However, the IRA extended the PTC in a way that was perhaps the most egregious. The IRA creates a “phase out” of the PTC starting in 2035 or two years after the U.S. electricity sector achieves a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 2022 baseline, whichever date is later. The U.S. electricity sector will not meet that target by 2035 (or likely ever), making the PTC the perfect encapsulation of the phase-down fallacy.
Likewise, the solar ITC’s phase-down has been repeatedly delayed and reset, most recently by the IRA, pushing its scheduled expiration well into the 2030s. The early history of the solar ITC included 7 laws and 6 extensions:
More recently, since 1992, there have been 9 extensions and modifications to the solar ITC:
The biomass-based diesel tax credit, which received a comparatively stingy 2-year extension from the IRA, has seen 6 extensions since its creation in 2004. Additionally, the EV tax credit’s manufacturer cap was eliminated by the IRA, replaced with a new set of complex requirements and a 2032 expiration date – essentially restarting the “phaseout” clock under different rules.
Why the IRA Energy Subsidies May Never Go Away—Unless We Act Now
If federal energy subsidies aren’t repealed now, they may never be. The longer these programs remain in place, the more politically entrenched they become, with growing coalitions of beneficiaries and justifications working to ensure their survival. There are four factors that will ensure these programs survive any alleged plans to phase them down.
First, consider path dependency and vested interests. Once projects like wind farms, solar arrays, ethanol plants, and electric vehicle factories are built with the help of subsidies, industries quickly form around them—and so do powerful lobbying groups. Trade associations like the American Clean Power Association (formerly the American Wind Energy Association), the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association have become highly effective at securing extensions for the subsidies that benefit their members. The political math often favors them: concentrated benefits for a few are easier to defend than diffuse costs borne by millions of taxpayers or consumers.
Second, the purpose of these subsidies keeps evolving. The history of American energy policy is rife with examples of shifting policy rationales that serve entrenched interests but hurt the American people. Initially pitched as temporary boosts for fledgling technologies or ways to enhance energy security, today they’re justified by broader political goals—chief among them, fighting climate change. Rural job creation, farm income support, domestic manufacturing, and even labor standards have since been added to the list. This ability to adapt to shifting justifications for abysmal policies allows subsidy schemes to persist.
Third, the “market stability” argument has become a potent tool. Advocates routinely warn that letting subsidies lapse would disrupt investments, create boom-bust cycles, and slow progress. These fears often prompt Congress to extend incentives for just a few more years, with vague promises of phasing them out later. In practice, such “phase-downs” serve as political cover—buying time for the conversation to shift and for another round of extensions to be passed. Most importantly, there is nothing “stable” about an economy organized around political favors and rent-seeking.
Finally, these programs are not just extended—they’re reinvented. Today’s subsidy regime is far more complex and embedded than it was a decade ago. Tax credits have evolved into hybrid structures, offering cash grants or bonus incentives for meeting certain labor or sourcing requirements. Electric vehicle credits now hinge on where cars are assembled, what materials go into their batteries, and even who’s buying them. These adaptive mechanisms don’t just prolong subsidies—they hardwire them into broader industrial and climate policy frameworks, making repeal even harder.
While supporters claim these incentives bring long-term stability to energy markets, they ignore the broader distortionary effects. Propping up industries regardless of real market demand creates economic inefficiencies and misallocates capital, risks that grow the longer subsidies remain disconnected from actual consumer needs.
The Road Ahead
The evidence is clear: so-called “temporary” energy subsidies rarely go away. Instead, they’re repeatedly extended, rebranded, or repurposed—turning into permanent fixtures of federal policy. The phase-out narrative has become little more than a political smokescreen, used to deflect criticism while paving the way for future extensions.
The Inflation Reduction Act represents the latest and most sweeping expansion of this dynamic. The cost is staggering, the market distortions are mounting, and the promised benefits remain largely speculative. Meanwhile, entrenched interests and evolving justifications—from climate change to job creation—continue to shield these subsidies from meaningful scrutiny. If lawmakers are serious about restoring fiscal responsibility and ending the cycle of politicized energy policy, they must reject the comforting fiction of the phase-out. The only way to truly rein in wasteful, distortionary spending is through full and permanent repeal.
U.S. Sen Angus King
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2025 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine