“If solar and wind are the most affordable and fastest to build resources, why do they need tax credits?” A reporter asked me this fair question yesterday. Here's the steelman case, in my view: 1) Market failure correction: Social value of solar and wind (e.g. reduced fuel price volatility, CO2 emissions, air pollution) exceeds private market value; tax credits help internalize these public benefits 2) Offsetting non-price barriers: Solar and wind face significant non-price barriers (e.g. permitting delays, interconnection challenges, transmission constraints) that favor incumbent resources; tax credits help counterbalance 3) Energy security: Solar and wind don’t rely on globally traded fuels, providing insulation from potential actions of adversarial governments while enabling lower-cost fuel export to allies 4) Supporting rapid load growth: With electricity demand rising quickly, tax credits help scale up new generation faster and mitigate backsliding into higher-emission resources 5) Accelerating deployment: Even in regions where solar and wind are cost-competitive, the pace of market-driven adoption may not align with public objectives; tax incentives help close the gap 6) Offsetting tariff impacts: Tariffs have raised costs of a variety of input materials and grid equipment; tax credits help offset these added burdens and keep projects economically viable 7) Addressing uneven economics: While solar and wind are the most affordable new energy sources in many markets, this isn’t universally true, especially in regions with weaker RE resources 8) Consistent w/ historical precedent: Nearly all major energy sources in US history have received federal subsidies; supporting renewables continues that tradition in service of modern priorities