Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Witnesses clash over clean‑energy subsidies, costs and EU due‑diligence rule
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses at a House subcommittee hearing disagreed over whether rolling back clean‑energy incentives would lower costs and whether the European Union's proposed corporate due‑diligence rule should be countered by U.S. law.
The hearing included a pointed exchange over clean energy subsidies and an EU regulatory proposal that witnesses said could affect U.S. companies.
Diana Furchtgott‑Roth, of the Heritage Foundation, argued that rolling back renewable subsidies and prioritizing fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower would lower electricity costs and protect U.S. industrial competitiveness. "American energy policy dominance goal should be to remain energy independent using domestic sources of energy which are affordable and abundant," she said, and warned that EU regulations could impose costs on U.S. firms.
Rep. Lauren Boebert asked about the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (referred to in testimony as "CS triple d"). Furchtgott‑Roth recommended listing the EU rule in the U.S. Trade Representative's national trade estimate, passing legislation to prohibit U.S. companies from complying with the EU rule, and using trade leverage tied to defense spending to offset regulatory costs — policy proposals she attributed to an interagency response the Trump administration could pursue.
By contrast, Representative Ansari and other committee Democrats cited independent analyses projecting job losses and higher household energy costs from rollback of renewable incentives. Rep. Ansari sought to submit an analysis into the record showing the bill's energy provisions could result in lost jobs and higher household energy costs. Autumn Hanna and other witnesses urged that decisions about subsidies and tax policy should be informed by data on comparative costs, emissions and long‑term liabilities.
No committee action was taken on EU policy, and witnesses provided competing policy recommendations for how the U.S. should respond to non‑U.S. regulatory regimes.
