Senator: Trump’s Big Ugly Budget Means a Big Ugly Energy Bill | Opinion

In 1976, construction began on a five-mega watt thermal solar test facility at the Energy Research and Development Administration’s Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. Before it was even completed, the facility became the largest operational solar installation in the world. This solar test facility was created as part of a large bipartisan effort to meet the energy crisis of the 1970s—the last time, until now, that Americans demanded more energy than the United States could provide.

The last energy crisis happened for a few reasons. Everyday folks could afford new energy-hungry conveniences like air conditioners. Technology was booming. And energy prices were skyrocketing because of the 1973 oil crisis, when barrels of oil—then our most in-demand energy source—quadrupled in price. U.S. energy production could not meet domestic demand, and the country saw blackouts and brownouts as a result.

The U.S. government had an energy crisis on its hand. It had to meet the moment, expand U.S. capacity to produce energy, and keep costs affordable. Congress jumped into action.

In a bipartisan effort, Congress created the Department of Energy. It funded significant research around the country to explore alternative power options like solar, geothermal, and nuclear—including the Energy Research and Development Administration, which had an estimated budget of $3.6 billion in 1975 dollars—equivalent to more than $23 billion today. And it worked on advancing transmission systems to create more competitive energy markets.

Congress met the moment and defined our energy future for decades to come. The solar lab in Albuquerque was just one example of that work.

Today, we are at a similar crossroads. New technology has once again outpaced available power reserves. Traditional forms of energy, like oil, are not as dominant, while new forms of energy are taking the lead. Infrastructure is aging. Across the country, utility prices are rising as demand for energy rises, too.

Again, Congress must meet the moment. But instead, congressional Republicans are flailing—bending over backwards to deliver for big business and billionaire donors, while abandoning everyday Americans.

Congressional Republicans are eliminating energy sources, not adding more; and this is raising your prices, not lowering them.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) took a historic step to accelerate our clean energy future and invest in solutions to address many of the energy challenges we face today. We provided tax credits and other financial incentives to companies to construct American-made energy facilities. And we made it more affordable for families to put in high-efficiency electric home appliances and install solar panels to slash home utility bills. Taken together, these would simultaneously create more, cleaner sources of energy, while helping families establish cheaper means of powering their homes. It wasn’t based on hope: data showed that it would be successful. Resources for the Future estimated that these provisions would save U.S. households up to $320 annually in 2030.

But Republicans are undoing this important work. Though they aren’t saying it out loud, the truth is that a decision to remove these provisions is a decision to raise the energy bills of Americans across the country. Energy Innovation, for example, estimates that if these IRA provisions are cut, household energy costs will rise by 33 percent by 2035—about $250 more per household. Other groups, like Princeton University’s ZERO Lab Project, estimate that the numbers could be higher—closer to $300 or more per household.

This is happening in my own home state of New Mexico, where the Center for American Progress estimates that families will see an electricity bill increase of 17 percent if the IRA provisions are pulled. That’s money that many hardworking New Mexican families simply don’t have.

Families below the poverty line already spend an average of 20 percent of their income on energy—five times what’s considered affordable—and in some areas, that number reaches 37 percent. For many households, the choice to pay hundreds more in energy costs means the choice to not pay for other things, like groceries or doctors’ bills or school supplies.

If Republicans succeed, it will constrict supply at the same time as demand is going up. And you will pay the cost, for years to come.

The truth is that the Republicans hold all the power here. They have every ability to stop this by leaving the IRA provisions and projects in place, working with us to meet the moment—just like our predecessors did so many years ago.

I urge you to contact your representatives today. Ask them to leave the Inflation Reduction Act alone.

Martin Heinrich serves as New Mexico’s senior United States senator, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and co-founder of the Senate AI Caucus. Senator Heinrich is focused on advocating for New Mexico families, championing public lands, delivering a clean energy future, lowering everyday costs, and growing the state’s economy.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.