Rebuttal: Fossil Fuel Talking Points Masquerading As Tax Fairness

Preston Brashers, a policy analyst at the oil and gas industry-funded Heritage Foundation

By EVWorld Si Editorial Team

Preston Brashers, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, argues in The Hill that clean energy companies are using tax credits to evade their "fair share" of taxes. The piece frames the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) credit design as a "shell game," urging Congress to use the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) to blunt these incentives. This argument relies on loaded language, selective focus, and omissions that misrepresent the role of clean energy tax credits in U.S. industrial strategy.

Context: the author’s affiliation matters

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that has consistently opposed federal climate policy and supported deregulatory approaches favored by fossil fuel interests. Brashers’s critique aligns with this longstanding posture: it targets the very mechanisms—transferable and direct-pay credits—that enable clean energy deployment and domestic manufacturing scale-up under the IRA.

What the opinion gets wrong

Fossil fuel subsidies remain larger and longer-standing. The global energy system still extends substantial support to fossil fuels through explicit and implicit subsidies. Ignoring these while singling out clean energy credits presents a skewed picture of “fairness.”

Tax equity and transferability are policy design, not loopholes. Many clean energy developers are project LLCs or early-stage firms without large tax liabilities. Transferability allows them to monetize credits and lower the cost of capital, unlocking private investment and accelerating deployment—exactly what Congress intended.

CAMT is a floor, not a backdoor repeal of credits. The 15 percent book minimum tax was created to ensure that highly profitable corporations pay a baseline rate, while preserving congressionally authorized credits that drive strategic investments. Using CAMT to punish legitimate credit use would undercut U.S. manufacturing, grid modernization, and supply chain security goals.

The strategic rationale for IRA credits

IRA incentives crowd in private capital, localize clean energy supply chains, and build industrial capacity in the United States. They reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, support grid reliability with diversified generation and storage, and strengthen competitiveness against countries that have long subsidized clean technologies. Dismantling these tools in the name of tax “fairness” would slow deployment, raise project financing costs, and cede ground in critical technologies.

Editorial position

If the discussion is about paying a “fair share,” it must include the full ledger: decades of embedded advantages for fossil fuels and the public costs they externalize. Clean energy credits are a transparent, legislated investment in innovation, resilience, and security. Rebranding them as a “scam” serves incumbent interests, not the public interest.

Sources

• The Hill: “Make green energy companies pay their fair share”
• IMF: Fossil fuel subsidies surged to $7 trillion in 2022
• U.S. Treasury: Inflation Reduction Act implementation
• Heritage Foundation: Energy and environment policy

Views: 85