Let's just go with the headline- so it might raises energy bills by $250, but on the other hand cut taxes by $500?
Most things that require subsidies don't work because they are more expensive solutions than the alternatives that exist in the market. Supporting those programmes will necessarily cost more overall (hence the 500 number I made up above is bigger than the 250 number they made up).
In the case of subsidizing clean energy I believe that most analysts have found that it results in a big net improvement in the long run.
Markets can get stuck in a local minimum where even though there is another local minimum that is lower than the current local minimum the market on its own won't move to that lower minimum because the cost to get out of the current local minimum is more than individual actors can afford.
Also in the case of clean energy there are benefits that aren't captured in the market price of clean energy or the price of fossil fuels, such as the effects of pollution. Pollution from fossil fuels leads to a lot of health costs in humans and also significantly reduces crop yields for example.
Look up interconnection fees for renewables for a look at the long run.
Renewables are also extremely polluting. Wind and solar as well as high upfront have relatively short lived and create a lot of physical pollution at the end of their useful lives (~20 years).
In contrast nuclear power plants may be pushed to 100+ years.
Markets can get stuck in a local minimum sure, but governments can get stuck there longer.
It's much much more complicated than this, nuclear power plants need significantly more maintenance, are much more complex to operate, and have somewhat unique failure risks and security concerns.
Solar vs wind vs nuclear is also a lose-lose sort of debate where you're ultimately disparaging a form of energy that is better than what most people are using today (coal and gas).
If we could get solar or nuclear or wind or just about anything ahead of coal and gas it would be a massive improvement.
The context is, operating cost is minimal. Resources that power the generation is zero, being that wind and sun are not commodities bought from suppliers. Coal and gas need to be bought first, before generating power. Without tax breaks to build renewables, gas and coal goes up with demand creating long term cost that will far out live temporary tax cuts. Cuts in a bill that will increase the debt by over 3 Trillion, and 5 Trillion if the temporary cuts get made permanent by 2034.
It's not $250+ electric bill but ~500 in tax cuts. Cuts are temporary (3-4 years? unless renewed) but the electric bill will just keep on chugging.
They could do things like restore ATM collection above 400k (+300B), Corporate SALT caps (+400B), expire the 199a pass-through above 200/400k (+470B), dont extend lower Intl rates for business (+165B), remove the extend & expand Estate cut (+210B), set the top rate to 39.6% above 400k (+650) [0]
Thats 2.2T or so using a bit of your math while leaving in most tax cuts for people making under 400k. And Trump gets to keep his vanity "Trump Account" that will cost 17B. Win Win for the majority of the population.
Letting the tax rate cuts expire would create ~3.4T in revenue instead of burden us for decades. Wasn't that the whole thing in the first place, reduce debt? Not increase it? Or just let the tax rates go halfsy and come away with 1.6T plus some of the 2.2T.
The IRA cuts are only a ~570B gain , part of that was for training and hiring workers, with a goal of a ~million jobs (iirc, I won't cry over its loss, but it's spending is a net good compared to the wastefulness of many of the tax cuts). This bill is going to cost us far more than the temporary tax saving for us, and more cuts for companies at the expense of the people.
There are so many problems with this article.
Let's just go with the headline- so it might raises energy bills by $250, but on the other hand cut taxes by $500?
Most things that require subsidies don't work because they are more expensive solutions than the alternatives that exist in the market. Supporting those programmes will necessarily cost more overall (hence the 500 number I made up above is bigger than the 250 number they made up).