Business
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Alex Epstein
This is the kind of integrity we need from industry—and from Congress.
Dear Chairman Smith and Chairman Crapo:
We, the undersigned American energy producers and investors, write to voice our principled support for full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) energy subsidies, including subsidies that would appear to be to our firms’ and industry’s benefit. This is the only moral and practical path forward if we are to truly unleash American energy.
In recent weeks, Congress has been embroiled in battles over which, if any, of the IRA energy subsidies to cut. Lobbyists representing every corner of the energy landscape, including trade groups that many of us are part of, are jockeying to preserve their own piece of the pie, claiming that it is uniquely valuable.
We have oil lobbyists fighting to keep carbon capture and hydrogen subsidies, solar and wind lobbyists fighting to keep solar and wind subsidies, biofuel lobbyists fighting to keep biofuel subsidies, and EV lobbyists fighting to keep EV subsidies.
If this continues, we will likely preserve most if not all of the subsidies, which, deep down, everyone knows are not good for America.
The fundamental truth about subsidies is very simple. For any product, including energy, a subsidy is just a way of taking money from more efficient producers—and from taxpayers—and giving it to less efficient producers. The result is always less efficient production and therefore higher costs or lower quality for Americans.
The most egregious example of subsidies’ destructiveness is the IRA’s solar and wind subsidies, which pay electric utilities to invest much more money in solar and wind than they otherwise would, and thus much less in coal and gas than they otherwise would. Ultimately this means higher electricity prices and certainly less electricity reliability for Americans.
The IRA subsidies’ devastating harm to American energy is more than enough to compel us, as energy producers, to oppose them.
But their harm goes far beyond energy, as they will dramatically increase our debt and ultimately undermine every aspect of our economy.
A central Congressional priority is to curb the national debt during the upcoming budget reconciliation exercise. But according to credible estimates, the IRA will cost over $1 trillion over the next decade and trillions more after that. Worse, the IRA subsidies are expected to misallocate, into uncompetitive business and jobs, $3 trillion of investment by 2032 and $11 trillion by 2050. That’s a disaster for our economy, and for real job opportunities.
Clearly, the right thing to do is to eliminate all these subsidies. When lobbyists say that these subsidies are essential for America, what they’re really saying is that their backers have made investments in projects that have no near term cost-effectiveness and that are totally dependent on indefinite subsidies to sustain themselves.
Most people know the truth, but are afraid to say it due to institutional pressures. Too many Congressmen are afraid of alienating trade groups. Too many trade groups are afraid of alienating their large and vocal members who have made investments hoping for indefinite subsidies. All the while, too few are talking about freedom.
That’s why we invite our colleagues to do the right thing: level with the American people, say that we made a mistake, and that those who built subsidy-dependent businesses took on the kind of risk that we do not want to reward.
Keeping the IRA subsidies—despite all the evidence that they benefit only special interests at the expense of America—risks making our nation ever more like Europe, where industries do not succeed by providing the best value to consumers, but by providing the best favors to politicians. That’s not the America we want to work in.
Sincerely,
Bud Brigham, Founder, Atlas Energy Services and Brigham Exploration
David Albin, Managing Partner, Spectra Holdings
Adam Anderson, CEO, Innovex International
Thurmon Andress, Chairman and CEO, Andress Oil
Don Bennett, Managing Partner, Bennett Ventures LP
Greg Bird, CEO and President, Jetta Operating Company
David de Roode, Partner, Lockton
Andy Eidson, CEO, Alpha Metallurgical Resources
Matt Gallagher, President and CEO, Greenlake Energy
Mike Howard, CEO, Howard Energy
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Ed Kovalik, CEO, Prairie Operating Company
Thomas E. Knauff, Executive Chairman, EDP
Lance Langford, CEO, Langford Energy Partners
Mickey McKee, CEO, Kodiak Gas Services
Mike O’Shaughnessy, CEO, Lario Oil and Gas Company
D. Martin Phillips, Founder, EnCap Investments LP
Karl Pfluger, midstream executive
David Rees-Jones, President, Chief Energy
Rob Roosa, CEO, Brigham Royalties
Bobby Shackouls, Former CEO, Burlington Resources
Ross Stevens, Founder and CEO, Stone Ridge Holdings Group
Kyle Stallings, CEO, Desert Royalty Company
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Mike Wallace, Partner, Wallace Family Partnership
Ladd Wilks, CEO, ProFrac
Denzil West, CEO, Admiral Permian Operating
Bill Zartler, Founder and CEO, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure
Additional signatories (email [email protected] to add yours):
Jimmy Brock, Executive Chairman, Core Natural Resources
Ted Williams, President and CEO, Rockport Energy Solutions LLC
To make sure as many politicians as possible see this letter, help us by sharing on Twitter/X and tagging your Congressmen! Congress is currently undecided about what to do about the IRA subsidies, so now is the moment to make your voice heard.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible
access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental,
and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
2025 Federal Election
MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers
-
Most believe private providers can deliver services faster than government-run hospitals
-
77 per cent of Canadians say their provincial healthcare system is too bureaucratic
Canadians are increasingly in favour of breaking the government monopoly over health care by opening the door to independent providers and cross-border treatments, an MEI-Ipsos poll has revealed.
“Canadians from coast to coast are signalling they want to see more involvement from independent health providers in our health system,” explains Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI. “They understand that universal access doesn’t mean government-run, and that consistent failures to deliver timely care in government hospitals are a feature of the current system.”
Support for independent health care is on the rise, with 56 per cent of respondents in favour of allowing patients to access services provided by independent health entrepreneurs. Only 25 per cent oppose this.
In Quebec, support is especially strong, with 68 per cent endorsing this change.
Favourable views of accessing care through a mixed system are widespread, with three quarters of respondents stating that private entrepreneurs can deliver healthcare services faster than hospitals managed by the government. This is up four percentage points from last year.
Countries like Sweden and France combine universal coverage with independent providers and deliver faster, more accessible care. When informed about how these health systems run, nearly two in three Canadians favour adopting such models.
The poll also finds that 73 per cent of Canadians support allowing patients to receive treatment abroad with provincial coverage, which could help reduce long wait times at home.
Common in the European Union, this “cross-border directive” enabled 450,000 patients to access elective surgeries in 2022, with costs reimbursed as if they had been treated in their home country.
There’s a growing consensus that provincial healthcare systems are overly bureaucratic, with the strongest agreement in Alberta, B.C., and Quebec. The proportion of Canadians holding this view has risen by 16 percentage points since 2020.
Nor do Canadians see more spending as being a solution: over half say the current pace of healthcare spending in their province is unsustainable.
“Governments shouldn’t keep doubling down on what isn’t working. Instead, they should look at what works abroad,” says Ms. Faubert. “Canadians have made it clear they want to shift gears; now it’s up to policymakers to show they’re listening.”
A sample of 1,164 Canadians aged 18 and older was polled between March 24th and March 28th, 2025. The margin of error is ±3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass on most or some of the cost of the industrial carbon tax to consumers. Meanwhile, just nine per cent believe businesses pay most of the cost.
“The poll shows Canadians understand that a carbon tax on business is a carbon tax on Canadians that makes life more expensive,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Only nine per cent of Canadians believe Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s claim that businesses will pay most of the cost of his carbon tax.
“Canadians have a simple question for Carney: How much will your carbon tax cost?”
The federal government currently imposes an industrial carbon tax on oil and gas, steel and fertilizer businesses, among others.
Carney said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and extend the “framework to 2035.” Carney also said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”
The Leger poll asked Canadians who they think ultimately pays the industrial carbon tax. Results of the poll show:
- 44 per cent say most of the cost is passed on to consumers
- 26 per cent say some of the cost is passed on to consumers
- 9 per cent say businesses pay most of the cost
- 21 per cent don’t know
Among those decided on the issue, 89 per cent of Canadians say businesses pass on most or some of the cost to consumers.
“Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “A carbon tax on business will push our entrepreneurs to cut production in Canada and increase production south of the border and that means higher prices and fewer jobs for Canadians.”
Liberals Replace Candidate Embroiled in Election Interference Scandal with Board Member of School Flagged in Canada’s Election Interference Inquiry
Massive new study links COVID jabs to higher risk of myocarditis, stroke, artery disease
Is Canada’s Federation Fair?
Province introducing “Patient-Focused Funding Model” to fund acute care in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days agoMade in Alberta! Province makes it easier to support local products with Buy Local program
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoASK YOURSELF! – Can Canada Endure, or Afford the Economic Stagnation of Carney’s Costly Climate Vision?
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCSIS Warned Beijing Would Brand Conservatives as Trumpian. Now Carney’s Campaign Is Doing It.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoInside Buttongate: How the Liberal Swamp Tried to Smear the Conservative Movement — and Got Exposed
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIs HNIC Ready For The Winnipeg Jets To Be Canada’s Heroes?
-
Dr. Robert Malone1 day agoThe West Texas Measles Outbreak as a Societal and Political Mirror
-
COVID-191 day agoCOVID virus, vaccines are driving explosion in cancer, billionaire scientist tells Tucker Carlson
-
Health1 day agoHorrific and Deadly Effects of Antidepressants