(PENNSYLVANIA) — U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, launched a push to reinstate wind and solar tax credits that President Trump and congressional Republicans eliminated in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, saying Trump is “getting bad advice” on renewables.
Fitzpatrick, one of only two House Republicans who voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, said he is preparing legislation to “undo the bad provisions from the renewable energy perspective” by restoring incentives for solar and wind projects.
The effort reopened a fight inside the GOP over whether to keep using the tax code to drive private investment in clean power, even as Republicans criticized the credits as wasteful subsidies and tightened eligibility rules for projects already in the pipeline.
President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, rolling back a range of clean energy incentives that Democrats expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, which had extended many credits through 2032 or later.
Republicans wrote the new law to accelerate phase-outs, narrow eligibility windows, and make timing and documentation decisive for both households and large developers, shifting the market’s attention to when a project starts construction and when it reaches “in service” status.
Fitzpatrick argued that fellow Republicans felt conflicting pressures when the bill came to a vote because some backed the package for other provisions, including immigration, even as clean energy cuts created problems for districts with renewable investment.
Many GOP colleagues, Fitzpatrick said, “really struggled” with their One Big Beautiful Bill Act votes, and he said he believes they would support standalone renewable credits even if they supported the larger bill for other reasons.
The law’s fastest impact landed on households through Section 25D, the Residential Clean Energy Credit that provided a 30% credit for solar panels, batteries and related home energy equipment.
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Section 25D expires for expenditures after Dec. 31, 2025, and it had already phased out of availability by February 2026, cutting off a consumer-facing incentive that installers and homeowners had used to lower up-front costs.
For utility-scale and commercial deployment, the law reshaped the newer technology-neutral structure Congress created to replace older, technology-specific credits.
Section 48E, the Clean Electricity Investment Credit, covers projects including solar and wind. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set a phase-out for projects starting construction after July 5, 2026, and required projects to be in service by end of 2027.
Section 45Y, the Clean Electricity Production Credit, followed the same accelerated phase-out schedule as Section 48E, placing similar pressure on developers that depend on long build cycles and financing commitments.
As of February 2026, developers could still claim the credits if construction began by July 4, 2026, and Fitzpatrick and industry participants pointed to the ways timing standards can decide which projects survive.
Developers also focused on safe-harbor pathways that, under the post-OBBBA framework, can extend certain planning and procurement timelines through 2030, adding another layer of compliance work as companies document that they met the standards.
Manufacturing incentives faced a different set of constraints under Section 45X, the Advanced Manufacturing Credit aimed at components and minerals in supply chains that support clean energy buildout, including wind components.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set Section 45X to end for wind components sold after Dec. 31, 2027. It also set metallurgical coal after 2029, while other categories phase to zero by 2034.
Beyond the calendar, Section 45X tightened after July 4, 2025, because of foreign entity bans tied to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, forcing companies to re-check procurement, contracting, and ownership structures when deciding whether a component or mineral qualifies.
Those foreign entity restrictions also spilled into project finance discussions, with developers and manufacturers weighing whether suppliers, counterparties, or upstream inputs could trigger disqualification.
The new law’s timing emphasis also put a premium on construction-start rules, continuity standards, and recordkeeping to prove a project met the relevant threshold by the required date.
On July 7, 2025, days after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he issued an executive order titled “Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources,” directing Treasury to strictly enforce terminations for wind and solar under Sections 45Y and 48E.
The order’s enforcement posture raised the stakes for how developers document start-of-construction claims and other eligibility requirements, with companies watching for how Treasury applies the tighter standards in audits and guidance.
Fitzpatrick criticized Treasury’s approach and described recent guidance as “malicious,” saying it tightened construction and continuity rules and required solar and wind starts by July 4, 2026.
Republicans split publicly over the underlying question of whether government should subsidize clean energy, even as some of the party’s elected officials used the same credits.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican, mocked “goofy, subsidized green energy crap” but installed rooftop solar and a battery at his Bozeman home years ago.
Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Rep. Ken Calvert of California also used the credit themselves, examples that clean energy supporters cited as evidence that the incentives have bipartisan appeal at the consumer level.
When the One Big Beautiful Bill Act moved through the Senate, Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote in a 51-50 passage, while three Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Susan Collins of Maine — voted no.
Collins cited the need for a gradual phase-out and residential incentives, an argument that aligned with concerns from lawmakers who said abrupt rollbacks can whipsaw household decisions and local installation businesses.
Outside Congress, industry expectations about whether the credits could return stayed mixed, reflecting both the political headwinds and the practical economic pressures of electricity demand growth.
Solar remained the most popular U.S. energy source per Pew Research, and a LinkedIn poll of solar professionals showed 56% expect the investment tax credit to return, with about half expecting changes.
Critics of the credits pointed to administrative complexity, arguing that detailed rules and shifting standards add compliance costs and invite disputes over eligibility.
Some Republicans framed the credits as ideological spending. A group of 38 Republicans called the incentives “Green New Scam,” and Trump labeled them a “SCAM.”
Fitzpatrick’s approach aimed to use those cross-currents to assemble a coalition focused on energy reliability and competitiveness rather than climate politics, arguing that the party’s rollback went too far for districts that depend on construction jobs and investment.
He also pointed to rising electricity demand from data centers, a load growth argument that clean energy advocates and some utilities have used to push for faster generation buildouts of all types.
In that pitch, renewables credits become a tool to bring generation online quickly, while easing pressure on regional power markets that face tight supply and long interconnection queues for large projects.
Fitzpatrick said he is courting colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, including Rep. Andrew Garbarino, a New York Republican, as he looks for a pathway to move a narrower credits bill even if the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act remains in place.
His effort also highlighted how much leverage Treasury holds even without new legislation, since guidance on construction start and continuity can narrow the number of projects that qualify before any future congressional vote.
Developers, manufacturers, and lenders have responded to the tighter windows by rushing to start projects, renegotiating contracts, and revisiting financing assumptions as they model whether a facility can meet the required timing and documentation standards.
For households, the change already landed in a simpler way: the loss of the Section 25D credit after Dec. 31, 2025, removed a familiar subsidy that installers often built into sales pitches and consumer budgeting, leaving fewer federal tax incentives for new residential solar and battery purchases.
For large projects, the Section 48E and Section 45Y changes made the difference between a viable and nonviable project depend on whether construction began before the cutoff and whether the facility can meet the in-service requirement by end of 2027, a compression that can collide with permitting and supply chain delays.
Manufacturers weighing Section 45X face both the scheduled phase-outs and the foreign-entity bans tied to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, a combination that can force last-minute sourcing changes and raise costs even for companies trying to build domestic supply chains.
Fitzpatrick’s push to revive at least some of the wind and solar incentives now sits at the intersection of those market pressures and internal Republican disagreements, setting up a fight over whether Congress will accept a narrower fix after having already celebrated passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Even if he draws support from colleagues who backed the broader bill, Fitzpatrick still must convince Republican leaders and skeptical lawmakers that restoring a clean energy tax credit serves their political and energy goals, while opponents continue to brand the incentives as a “SCAM.”
Brian Fitzpatrick Backs One Big Beautiful Bill Act to Boost Clean Energy Tax Credit
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick is challenging his party’s stance by seeking to revive renewable energy tax credits eliminated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The legislation significantly accelerated the expiration of solar and wind incentives, creating a rush for developers to meet strict construction deadlines. While the administration labels these credits a ‘scam,’ Fitzpatrick highlights the bipartisan consumer appeal and the necessity of renewables for meeting rising energy demands.
