By Tim Benson

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was probably Joe Biden’s signature “achievement” from his disastrous term as president. Of course, the purpose of the IRA was not to reduce inflation, as Biden later cheerfully admitted. Actually, the IRA’s architects created an enormous renewable energy slush fund in the form of tax credits to “green” energy sources such as wind and solar power, battery storage, and electric vehicle (EV) purchases, as well as directly funding and subsidizing sketchy “environmental justice” initiatives and green lobbying groups staffed up and directed by Democrat politicos. Credible estimates of the total cost of the IRA place it at a sizeable fortune.

With Washington either preoccupied, disinterested, or outright opposed to repealing the IRA, any meaningful pushback is going to have to come at the state level. Fortunately, as The Heartland Institute outlined in a recent policy study, The High Costs of Climate Scams: Assessing the Green Giveaways in the Inflation Reduction Act, there are substantial actions state legislatures can take to blunt the impact of the IRA.

For instance, states could adopt the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) model bill, “The Electric Reliability Act,” which would require new firm power to be brought online before closing existing firm power sources. Replacement of firm power plants that produce power on demand with variable wind and solar is insufficient to secure grid reliability with present demand, much less with the added demand likely to flow from the EPA’s de-facto EV mandate, which essentially requires that a minimum of 56 percent of new cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2032 would have to be EVs in order to meet the new emissions standards.

State legislators could also adopt a law requiring state energy commissions to forbid the closure of existing baseload power plants until it can be proven that the added demand for electric power from the EPA’s new vehicle emissions rule will not hamper reliability. To achieve that goal, the owners of new EVs should pay a surcharge for ongoing grid updates and expansions rather than having general ratepayers subsidize the added strain that EVs are putting on the grid. State policymakers should also direct energy commissions to require that for every X percent in demand new EVs place on the grid, some amount of new on-demand power supply (coal, natural gas, or nuclear) should be added to the grid, or existing plants be upgraded to supply more power.

Legislators could also consider policies similar to those ensconced within ALEC’s draft model bill, the Equitable Escalation of Electricity Demand Act. Because federal policies like the IRA, EPA emissions standards, and Department of Energy appliance efficiency standards are incentivizing and mandating the widespread adoption of EVs and electric appliances, grid operators project an imminent rapid increase in overall electricity demand, which will require large investments in power production and grid infrastructure.

This model bill states that the cost of technologies that demand large increases in domestic power, like electric vehicles, should be borne by those who benefit directly from the new power supply, not ratepayers in general.

To both cover this cost and provide sufficient additional dispatchable power, this bill would place a fee on all new EV charging stations connected to the electric grid and all new electric vehicles sold. The fee would be separate from any fee levied on EVs for infrastructure construction and maintenance and would be dedicated to the construction of new dispatchable power supplies to meet expected demand, without socializing the cost across all ratepayers.

RELATED: Budget-Busting Climate Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act Must Go

DOGE Lawmakers Want to Recoup the Money from Biden's Post Office EV Boondoggle

Another way to push back would be to adopt ALEC’s “Act to Prohibit State Procurement of Electric Vehicles with Forced Labor Components” model legislation, developed with the help of The Heartland Institute.

As the model legislation reads, “Taxpayer dollars should not be used to create demand for this inhumane practice, and states should restrict government procurement of electric vehicles unless the manufacturers responsible for the supply chain can show that the taxpayer dollars will not be used to buy a vehicle made with forced labor.” If states were to adopt this bill, it would essentially bar state and county agencies, and municipal governments from purchasing any electric vehicle for which the “slave and child labor free” guarantee cannot be transparently established—which applies to the vast majority of all EVs on the market.

Finally, legislators could consider barring the sale of EVs produced using child and/or slave labor in their state. Congress is charged with regulating interstate commerce, an authority it has compromised through its delegation of regulatory authority to agencies like the EPA and to states like California with waivers. When it comes to EVs, Congress’ interstate commerce authority clashes with other provisions of the Constitution that bar slavery and religious persecution, as well as with federal laws barring child labor. Because the EPA has recognized the authority of some states to set stricter clean air standards than federal law demands, states could fight for authority to uphold the Constitution and federal law in the face of federal regulations from the EPA that seem to undermine them in spirit and practicality, if not in letter.

Tim Benson ([email protected]) is the senior policy analyst with The Heartland Institute and Heartland Impact.