Cramer in March. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Sen. Kevin Cramer thinks Republicans need to toss out some of the IRA but sees challenges to peeling it back.
Why it matters: The North Dakota senator is close to President-elect Trump —and Interior nominee Doug Burgum — and holds a senior position on Environment and Public Works.
- He'll be a top voice next year in the fight over the IRA and overhauling a slew of regulatory proposals from the Biden EPA.
Axios spoke to Cramer on Thursday before Trump announced his Interior and DOE nominees. Their conversation has been edited.
What was your reaction to Lee Zeldin for EPA administrator?
Given that the EPA is now in this transition of post-Chevron, post-West Virginia v. EPA, post-Waters of the United States Supreme Court rulings … he's probably a great choice.
What are you hearing from industry and folks back home about the IRA energy provisions and what should be repealed or kept?
Back home, they like 45Q, obviously, with Project Tundra being one of the more advanced … projects in the queue for support. I think [the credit] made carbon capture possible, to be honest, in that coal plant.
On the other hand, even North Dakota, as big a wind state as it is, people know wind does not need to be subsidized anymore. It is not an emerging technology. It's just become piggish when it comes to the federal trough.
Did this come up during the leadership race? Do you have a sense of where the incoming majority leader [John Thune] is going to stand?
It did not come up. As far as where the new majority leader might stand on this: One thing about wind, it's made every state an energy state … to include Iowa and South Dakota.
It's a pretty good illustration of the difficulty of getting rid of some subsidies while hanging on to others, regardless of how long they've been around.
This is why I think you should have a fuel-neutral credit. And [it] ought to have some level of productivity … market efficiencies attached to the formula.
The IRA credits become technology-neutral next year based on emissions reduction. So I'd be curious to see what kind of revisions you all end up trying to make to that or if it's just a wholesale repeal.
That's the problem, right? We'll talk about wholesale repeal right up until we shift over to 'But not my ox, please.' And then pretty soon you've got no repeal.
It's hard, but we have to get after some stuff. I think the low-hanging fruit for getting rid of things is the EVs.
What do you think the landscape for permitting reform looks like now?
I'd say it's not dead, but as you know, it's all up to Chuck Schumer.
How would the Manchin-Barrasso package change if Republicans are doing their own thing next year?
I think it would be less generous on the transmission side.
The allowing of non-planned transmission being reimbursed or credited outside of a planning process … just incentivizes merchants to build transmission lines to nowhere and then charge it to the ratepayers that live someplace between nowhere and a wind farm.
Have you heard anything from rural electric co-ops about what they think about the bill?
Yeah, I have. Groups like Basin Electric and Minnkota Power, and then, of course, the statewide REC, they're kind of counting on me to look out for them on this topic.
Now, Sen. Hoeven and Sen. Manchin both claim that they fixed those problems for the co-ops.
They may have fixed the co-op-specific issues, but the co-ops have the same concern that the investor-owned utilities have that I've just articulated.
