“Just days after I was sworn into Congress in 2017, I found myself in the thick of negotiations over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Republicans passed the bill within a month, and I returned to Utah eager to tell small-business owners and manufacturers about the historic tax relief they could expect. As I shared the news, business leaders politely nodded, then said, ‘Thanks. But if you really want to help us grow, cut the red tape and the uncertainty that goes with it,’” Senator John Curtis (R-UT) reflected in an opinion piece published in the Deseret News. “Solving a problem is great. Solving the right problem is better,” he wrote.
Sen. Curtis takes that lesson with him as the U.S. Senate enters the budget reconciliation process. He explained, “Specifically, the Senate must solve the right problem relating to American energy. The right policy solution must navigate tax credits and regulatory reform in what I believe is central to America’s economic future, the planet, and our national security: energy.”
In late May, the U.S. House narrowly pushed through its version of the reconciliation bill with a 215-214 vote, where, unfortunately, it took a sledgehammer to vital clean energy tax credits. Sen. Curtis understands why many members of his party oppose the credits: “Some conservatives understandably want to end the energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and frankly, I agree with them on many provisions that included frivolous spending. We weren’t included in its drafting and didn’t vote for it.”
However, he argued, “We must be wise — we simply cannot afford to treat good policy ideas as guilty by political association. That would be a quest for political power over intelligence and strategy. The simple truth is this: many of these credits are Republican policies that we fought to protect.”
Photo Courtesy Fervo Energy
Sen. Curtis recalled visiting the fossil fuel-heavy Uinta Basin and the geothermal fields of Beaver County, where he has “seen cutting-edge facilities building the future of power” and “spoken with energy innovators across Utah and the nation.” He added that these types of American companies have relied on the tax credits as they planned investments that have spurred domestic manufacturing, created jobs, and supported local communities: “Businesses from across the energy spectrum — oil and gas, nuclear, renewables — have already made billions in long-term investments based on these policies. We must build a thoughtful, principled bill that doesn’t pull the rug out from under American innovators.” Ripping out this rug, he claimed, could lead to frozen investments, delayed production schedules, and higher costs.
The crux of the piece is Sen. Curtis’s statement that “When government acts, it must be fiscally responsible and targeted. This problem requires the government to support the private sector in its leadership, not the other way around.” In his conversations with energy leaders in the state and across the country, Sen. Curtis noted, “Their consistent ask isn’t subsidies — it’s predictability and deregulation.”
He points not only to “unnecessary uncertainty” regarding the fate of the tax credits but also toward “a regulatory millstone” stemming from the lengthy permitting process for energy projects as a burden on the country. Such a status quo does not support the private sector in advancing America’s energy leadership. He therefore called for deregulation in his op-ed: “Deregulation doesn’t mean eliminating guardrails. It means designing rules that are transparent, consistent, and don’t take five years and three lawsuits to get a permit… What will truly unleash energy production isn’t a new spending or deduction line — it’s liberating American ingenuity from the shackles of Washington bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation.” Curtis’ statements highlight that substantive permitting reform will be an essential part of this process.
Sen. Curtis argued that an overregulated and uncertain energy landscape gives adversaries like China and Russia an opening to strike at our energy independence and national security. He wrote, “During the oil embargo of the 1970s, Americans learned a hard truth: we must never depend on adversaries for our energy… Decades later, we watched as European leaders scrambled when Russia invaded Ukraine — only to discover that they were energy-dependent on their enemy. The U.S. must never be in that position.”
His vision of the path forward harkens back to Speaker Mike Johnson’s comments to CNBC last year that in dealing with the credits, “You’ve got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer, because there’s a few provisions in there that have helped overall.” Sen. Curtis wrote, “We can — and must — evaluate each tax credit on its merits. Some deserve to be wound down. Others should stay, at least for now, if they advance American energy independence and national security. In reconciliation, we should fight for a thoughtful approach or, in the words of Speaker Johnson, ‘use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer.’”
Sen. Curtis made the case that the tax credits support President Trump’s energy agenda, based on “prosperity, security, and leverage.” He wrote, “To meet President Trump’s goals, we must bring every energy source to the table as part of the solution. If we prematurely cut any one of them off — or do so without a reasonable, responsible offramp — we don’t just risk falling short of our energy targets; we put our economy and national security in jeopardy.”
