The Meta-OpenAI Talent War, Canada Drops its Tech Tax & a GOP Blow to Clean Energy

Summary

Prof G Markets: The Meta-OpenAI Talent War, Canada Drops its Tech Tax & a GOP Blow to Clean Energy

Release Date: July 1, 2025

In this episode of Prof G Markets, host Ed Elson delves into three major developments shaking the capital markets: the intensifying battle for AI talent between Meta and OpenAI, Canada’s withdrawal of its digital services tax, and the GOP’s controversial “Big Beautiful Bill” impacting the renewable energy sector. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn during the episode.

---

1. Market Overview

Timestamp: [02:25]

Ed Elson begins by providing a snapshot of the market's current state. Both the S&P and NASDAQ indices reached all-time highs, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw a modest increase of 0.6%. Notably, Meta experienced a record surge in its stock price following strategic restructuring in its AI division, which included hiring 11 new researchers and engineers. Conversely, the US dollar experienced its worst performance in the first half of the year in decades, and yields on 10-year Treasuries declined as Wall Street monitors the Senate's impending tax bill vote.

---

2. Canada Rescinds Digital Services Tax

Timestamp: [02:25 - 06:28]

The episode transitions to international trade, highlighting Canada’s recent decision to drop its proposed digital services tax on American tech giants. This move came merely 48 hours after former President Trump vehemently opposed the tax, labeling it "egregious" and threatening to halt all trade negotiations with Canada.

Ed Elson’s Analysis:

“Trump went scorched earth for a concession that is basically of little to no consequence for either Canada or America.” [05:00]

Elson views Canada’s capitulation as Trump’s first tangible win in trade negotiations, contrasting it with previous instances where Trump had backtracked on trade deals with China and Europe. However, he points out that the removal of the tax—which was set to generate approximately $2 billion, equating to about 0.1% of the annual revenues of companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon—has minimal impact on both nations and primarily benefits big tech.

Interview with Vass Bednar:

“It does feel deflating." [06:28]

Claire, the producer, interviews Vass Bednar from the Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy. Bednar explains that the digital services tax was limited in scope and lacked clear allocation of funds, which contributed to Canada’s decision to abandon it. Additionally, the timing around Canada Day and national pride through initiatives like the Buy Canadian campaign made the continuation of the tax less appealing.

Ed Elson’s Conclusion:

“It’s $2 billion. It’s a win for Trump, yes, but it’s mostly just a marginal win for big tech.” [08:07]

Elson emphasizes that while the tax removal is portrayed as a significant victory by Trump, the financial benefits are negligible for both countries and only offer a slight advantage to major tech corporations.

---

3. The Meta-OpenAI AI Talent War

Timestamp: [08:07 - 16:31]

The episode shifts focus to the escalating competition between Meta and OpenAI to secure top-tier AI talent. Recent reports indicate that Meta has successfully recruited at least eight senior researchers from OpenAI’s advanced teams, fueling a fierce rivalry in the AI sector.

Ed Elson’s Insights:

“Meta is all in on AI.” [12:27]

Meta's aggressive hiring strategy includes offering substantial signing bonuses—rumored up to $100 million—to lure experts from OpenAI. This move has led Meta’s stock to soar by over 10% in the past month, signaling investor confidence in the company’s AI ambitions. Ed suggests that Meta’s substantial capital expenditure, projected at $72 billion for the year, underscores their commitment to dominating the AI landscape.

Interview with Zoe Schiffer:

“Mark Zuckerberg saying, this is my number one priority.” [12:27]

Zoe Schiffer from Wired provides further context, discussing the dubious nature of the reported $100 million signing bonuses. She highlights that while such figures might be exaggerated, they reflect OpenAI’s desperation to compete with Meta’s financial prowess. Schiffer posits that Meta's strategy of "buying people" rather than companies marks a significant shift in their approach to innovation.

Ed Elson’s Evaluation:

“The history of Meta shows that buying people could be their answer." [16:31]

Elson reflects on Meta’s past acquisitions and suggests that while historically successful, the current strategy of aggressively recruiting individuals poses uncertainties. He questions whether Meta can sustain this approach beyond financial incentives, emphasizing the need for a culture of innovation to truly capitalize on the talent they are attracting.

---

4. The GOP’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and Its Impact on Clean Energy

Timestamp: [18:50 - 27:15]

Ed Elson addresses the latest developments surrounding the GOP’s legislative package, dubbed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which is poised to reshape America’s energy landscape. The bill includes substantial cuts to renewable energy incentives and introduces new excise taxes on wind and solar projects that rely on Chinese supply chains.

Ed Elson’s Overview:

“Tax credits for renewable energy will be eliminated by 2027.” [21:00]

The proposed elimination of renewable energy tax credits is expected to slash investment in wind and solar sectors by 72%, potentially leading to a net loss of nearly half a trillion dollars in renewable capital investment. Additionally, new excise taxes of 30% for solar and 50% for wind projects not disentangled from China aim to reduce dependency on foreign supply chains but risk crippling the burgeoning clean energy industry.

Expert Commentary from Bob Keefe:

“This is a plan to kill jobs, to... make our country less competitive in the global marketplace.” [22:40]

Bob Keefe, Executive Director of E2, vehemently opposes the bill, arguing that it undermines job creation, deters business investments, and stifles energy sector growth. He emphasizes that the elimination of tax credits and the introduction of excise taxes will lead to significant project cancellations, diverting investments abroad and jeopardizing the progress made under previous policies like the Inflation Reduction Act.

Further Insights from Zoe Schiffer:

“Mark Zuckerberg is reaching out to... because this initiative is so important.” [12:27]

While not directly related to the energy bill, Schiffer’s insights into Meta’s operations draw a parallel to how significant policy changes can influence corporate strategies and innovation.

Ed Elson’s Conclusion:

“This bill completely undermines America's ability to [expand renewable energy].” [27:15]

Elson underscores the detrimental effects of the bill, asserting that it severely hampers the United States’ capacity to meet its energy demands and compete with global powers like China. He emphasizes the necessity of robust renewable energy investments to sustain economic growth and energy independence.

---

Conclusion

In this episode, Prof G Markets provides a critical analysis of the current economic and technological battles shaping the market. From the negligible impact of Canada’s reversed digital services tax to Meta’s high-stakes competition for AI talent, and the GOP’s obstructive energy legislation, Ed Elson offers insightful perspectives on how these developments influence financial markets and broader economic landscapes. Listeners are left with a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between policy decisions, corporate strategies, and market dynamics.

---

For more insights and daily updates on the capital markets, tune in to Prof G Markets every weekday on the Vox Media Podcast Network.

Transcript

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from Intuit Reaching the Right Small Business Starts with the Right data Intuit SMB Media Labs is a first of its kind small business ad network with access to audiences and insights from the makers of QuickBooks. You can target key decision makers by industry size, maturity, location and more. Your Gateway to B2B SMB Marketing Success Learn more at medialabs.intuit.com hey, it's Scott Galloway. In today's marketing landscape, if you're not evolving, you're getting left behind. In some ways, it's easier than ever to reach your customers, but cutting through the noise has never been harder. So we're going to talk about it on a special Profg Office Hour series. We'll be answering questions from C Suite execs and business leaders about how to market efficiently and effectively in today's chaotic world. So tune into propg Office Hours special series brought to you by Adobe Express. You can find it on the Propg feed wherever you get your podcasts.

[Claire]

Support for the show comes from Mercury. It's the fintech that brings all the ways you use money into a single extraordinary product. Now you can quickly and easily send money, pay bills, create and send invoices, issue reimbursements to your team, and more without having to toggle between a dozen apps and services. Visit mercury.com to apply in 10 minutes or less. Mercury Banking that does more Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group column NA and Evolve bank and Trust members FDIC.

[Ed Elson]

Today'S number 300. That's how many times per year the average American wakes up in a bad mood. Put another way, Americans are grumpy 82% of the time or six days a week. So if you live in America and and anything goes wrong in your life, whether that's a meeting at work or an argument with your spouse, just remember the probability that one or both of you woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning is approximately 100%. So there's your explanation. On the flip side, if you live in America and anything goes right in your life, just be grateful. Because statistically speaking, that is a miracle. Money Market's Madness if money is evil, then that building is hell. Show goes up the better.

[Bob Keefe]

Watch and sell Sell.

[Ed Elson]

Welcome to Property Markets. I'm Ed elson. It is July 1st. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The S and P and the NASDAQ both ended the day at all time highs. The Dow rose 0.6%. Meta also hit a record high after Mark Zuckerberg restructured the company's AI division and hired 11 new researchers and engineers. We'll talk more about that later. Meanwhile, the dollar fell to close out its worst first half of a year in decades. And the yield on 10 year treasuries declined through the day as Wall street kept tabs on the Senate's tax bill vote. Okay, what else is happening? Canada has officially rescinded their talks of imposing a digital services tax on American companies. This comes just 48 hours after Trump called the tax egregious and then threatened to terminate all trade talks with Canada. After the tax was rescinded by Canada, trade between the US And Canada resumed. That is according to Canadian government officials. So let's be very clear here, and let's give credit where credit is due. Canada capitulated to Trump. Trump said he didn't like this tax. He made these scorched earth trade threats, and then Canada responded to his demands. They canceled the tax. So this is a win for Trump. And as far as I can tell, it's actually the first win for Trump. I mean, you remember he blinked with China, he blinked with Europe. He's blinked on every trade negotiation that has happened during this administration. But on this occasion, for the first time, suddenly the art of the deal appears to be actually working. Trump got what he wanted. He got a removal of the digital services tax. So good for Trump, he got his win. Now, what does this win actually mean? What does it mean to remove Canada's digital services tax? What does it mean for America? What does it mean for Americans? Well, as it turns out, not that much at all. This is essentially a tax on big tech companies. Big tech companies that license user data from Canadians. It's the same tax that exists in Austria and in France and in the UK and several other countries. And the point of it is basically to recognize the value that that big tech gets from monetizing the data of their citizens. So that's why Canada has this tax. So if you get rid of this tax, who does it help? Well, it helps big tech, but barely. It's around $2 billion, which has a percentage of Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon's annual revenue. That stacks up to an increase of roughly 0.1%. Meanwhile, over in Canada, the number is again peanuts. $2 billion. That's about how much the city of Toronto is going to spend on policing in 2025. In other words, Trump went scorched earth for a concession that is basically of little to no consequence for either Canada or America. And I wonder if that is actually why Canada capitulated here. I wonder if Carney realized that. Actually, all Trump really cares about, as we've discussed, is to look like he's winning. It's to appear to the public victorious, to look like the winner in the headlines. So why not just hand him this superficial victory, say, you know, we lost, get rid of the digital services tax, make him happy, and essentially lose nothing. I personally think that that is what happened here. So, yes, Trump won here, but just remind yourself what it is that he actually won. What he won is an additional $2 billion for Big Tech, which for Mark Zuckerberg and for Jeff Bezos is basically like getting your parking ticket dismissed. It's nice, it makes your day better, but it's not important. So we wanted to get some more information on this decision from Canada. So our producer, Claire, talks to Vass Bednar, the managing director of the Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy.

[Claire]

Absolutely. It's being framed as a huge win. And it's. It's hard to really say how symbolic or concrete it really is. Under President Biden's administration, they had contested it through Kuzma. So we knew that the Americans or that the United States was not a fan of this tax. So it could have been that Canada was just anticipating. It needed to be one of the cards or tokens at our negotiating table. There was a lot of speculation that it would be something that we would walk away from quickly. Now, why is that? Because it was still in design. Right. It came into effect last year, but the payments were going to happen around right now at the very end of June, and they were actually backdated to 2022. Another challenge potentially with the design of the tax is that it was never. The money was just going to go into kind of general purpose funds federally. So we also didn't attach or tether it to anything either related to our. Maybe our digital sovereignty. Right. Or public investments in. In digital infrastructure that we might want to make as country. And that may have also, again, muddled and lessened some of the. Not excitement for it, but appreciation of what this policy intervention was trying to achieve. I do think, you know, just before Canada Day for Canadians in this moment, where we've been very patriotic, where we've been quite proud of what we've been able to do with the Buy Canadian campaign, and we're seeing, you know, changes in tourism patterns and feeling quite prideful about shopping locally or staying locally that it does feel deflating.

[Ed Elson]

So she's going over Some of the details of that tax there, I mean, one of them being that it is a backward looking. It's technically a retroactive tax that dates back to 2022. But the long and short of it is the number. And that is, as I said, $2 billion. And just remember, whenever you see, as we're going to see this week, when Trump gets up on stage, he says, look at this big win that I achieved and yes, conceded on this podcast, it is a win for him. But think about the number and think about the money and where the money goes. It's $2 billion. It's a win for Trump, yes, but it's mostly just a marginal win for big tech, for Google, for Amazon, for Meta. It's $2 billion more for them to share amongst themselves. And that's again, not even really a big win. I mean, just think about what happened this weekend where you saw Jeff Bezos, who spent 50 million dol wedding. So Trump's going to call this a win. He's going to say this is a turning point. But just remember, this is barely a win. This is peanuts for all parties involved. The AI talent war between Meta and OpenAI has reached new heights, with reports of Meta having poached at least eight senior OpenAI researchers in just the past month. These are not just junior engineers. They include leaders from OpenAI's Perception team, Advanced Reasoning and GPT4 teams. This news caused Meta stock to reach record highs yesterday. It's up over 10% in the last month. Now, these new hires are a part of Meta's effort to create an elite new AI research group, internally called the Superintelligence Team. The team is made up of 50 of the world's top AI researchers, and Mark Zuckerberg is personally overseeing it and even reaching out to potential candidates. This is also the group that former Scale AI CEO Alexander Wang was tapped to lead, which, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago, was essentially a $14 billion aqua hire that was disguised as an investment. So it appears that Meta is taking this whole AI thing very, very seriously, probably more seriously than anyone else. As we've discussed, Meta's capex is accelerating faster than any other big tech company. Microsoft's Capex has been trending down. Meanwhile, Meta's is going up. They're expected to invest 72 billion dol billion in capex this year. By the way, that is essentially just Latin for AI at this point. If you're investing in CapEx and you're in tech, you're investing in AI. And at the Same time, they're trying to build this SEAL team, 6 of AI engineers, and they appear to be willing to pay anything to get it. So Meta is all in on AI. And that could mean two things. Either one, they simply believe in AI more than other companies and they're willing to take on more risk to win it. Or number two, perhaps Meta feels behind on AI, perhaps Zuckerberg feels a little bit desperate. And that would make sense because technically speaking, Meta is trailing in the AI race. You look at all of the different LLM leaderboards and all of the benchmarks, the top two AI models belong not to Meta, but to OpenAI and Google. Those are the two winners in AI as of today. And if you look at the prediction markets, Meta's situation doesn't look so great either. According to Polymarket, Meta's chances of having the best AI model by the end of the year are just 6%. By the way, the one with the best chances is Google. Gemini has a 51% chance of having the best model. More reason again to be bullish on Google. So with that in mind, it starts to make sense why Meta is getting so aggressive on AI. And now, as opposed to buying companies as they used to do and they used to love to do, they are instead buying people. And that brings us to the number that's been making all the headlines, and that is $100 million. That's how much Meta is offering as a signing bonus to researchers at OpenAI. Or at least that is according to Sam Albin, the CEO of OpenAI. But we wanted to get some more clarity on this situation, so we brought on Zoe Schiffer. She is the Director of Business and Industry at Wired.

[Zoe Schiffer]

So we should have some more details coming out this week on what the offers actually look like. What we can say right now is that Sam Altman said on a recent podcast with his brother Jack Altman, that OpenAI researchers high level talent was seeing as much as $100 million in signing bonuses and year one compensation. We know that at least one Meta executive has pushed back, calling that number dishonest and a coup. Researchers who left OpenAI to go to Meta have actually said, like, we didn't receive that offer. It looks like those really, really high numbers are going to, you know, if they are accurate, are just being offered to a very select few kind of high level talent. But right now we could just kind of have the word of these two warring executives. And there's a lot of speculation around them too. You know, some people feel like Sam Altman has A reason to come out and say this crazy high number, because then if Meta tries to poach other talent and they're just $50 million, maybe that person then feels slighted and so. But I do think it's fair to say that OpenAI is nervous in this moment. They do feel like competing against Meta purely from a compensation perspective isn't a viable option for a private company. Meta is public. It has an enormous amount that it can offer people from a financial perspective, and it's hard for OpenAI to compete purely from that POV. Do you think it says anything about Meta that they have to offer packages that big to steal talent? Is that a worthy price for talent of this caliber, or is it kind of about having to sweeten the deal to get Talent to join Meta? That's a really good question. And I think there's two things going on. I think that on one level, it's almost symbolic. It's Mark Zuckerberg saying, this is my number one priority. I am personally reaching out to recruit people, people. I am offering as much as we possibly can to get this talent over to Meta because this initiative is so important. It's really almost existential for the future of the company. On the other hand, I talked to some people at OpenAI who kind of joked, yeah, it would take about that much money for me to want to join Meta. I think there are a lot of people in the research community who really like being at a small lab where they can move fast and be nimble. There's not a lot of bureaucracy, and they feel like the entire organization is set up around the research, which is not. Has not historically been the case at Meta. And so I think that there's a bit of a brand issue that Mark Zuckerberg is having to combat, and he's doing, so, it seems, with money. Do you think Meta's buying spree will pay off? Can they buy a win in the air race? No. I mean, my opinion is that, no, I think you can buy a lot. Like, I think money goes a long way, but I think they're going to have to match that with creating. I mean, not to like Shelf or Sam Altman out here, but like creating a culture of innovation. You can have those very, very talented people, but we all know talented people who have been in an environment where they weren't able to be successful. And I think in order for them to be successful, Meta is going to need to willing to take risks and they're going to have to be really research focused, while at the same time pairing that with products, AI products that people really want to use. And those are hard things to do. Meta, I think, for the past many, many years hasn't necessarily been a company that we think of as particularly innovative at its core, although it's been quite savvy in kind of acquiring other innovative companies. You whether you can then bring those people in and make them successful, I think remains to be seen.

[Ed Elson]

So the question Claire raised there, which I think is an important one, is can Meta buy its way to success? Can Mark Zuckerberg buy his way to success? That is an interesting question. But if you look at the history of Meta, if you look at what they've done in the past, I think you will find the answer is yes. The only difference. The difference is that today they're not buying companies. Today they're buying people. After the break, an update on the Big Beautiful Bill. Stay with us.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show comes from Grunds. You've heard me talk about these guys before, but let me refresh your memory. Grunds are a convenient, comprehensive formula packed into eight delicious gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a green gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. And just in time for summer, Grunts has a limited edition Raspberry Lemonade flavor so you can upgrade your wellness routine with a fun and refreshing snack pack that couldn't be more convenient. Perfect to toss into your beach bag, your carry on, or wherever your summer travels take you. A Grunds Daily Snack Pack is vegan, free of nuts, gluten and dairy and made with no synthetic sweeteners or dyes. Gruentz says their daily snack pack of eight gummies contains more than 20 vitamins and minerals and more than 60 whole food ingredients. Grab your limited edition Raspberry Lemonade. Grunds get up to 52% off when you go to Grunds Co and use the promo code PRPG. That's Gruns Co and use the promo code PROP G at checkout. Support for the show comes from Intuit. When it comes to small business marketing, reaching the right audience starts with the right data. Intuit SMB Media Labs is a first of its kind small business ad network that helps your marketing work way smarter. By leveraging exclusive audiences and insights from the makers of QuickBooks, you can connect with the right customers efficiently and effectively. With a scale of 36 million, Intuit SMB Media Labs puts your brand in front of the small businesses that you need most targeting key decision makers by industry, size, maturity and location. More than just an audience. It's your SMB media partner. Learn [e-mail].

[Ed Elson]

This episode is brought to you by Polestar. There's only one true way to experience the all electric luxury SUV Polestar 3, and that's to take a test drive. It can go from 0 to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds with the dynamic handling of a sports car. But to truly understand how it commands the road, you need to be behind the wheel. Up to 350 miles of range. The 3D surround sound system by Bowers and Wilkins. It's all something you have to experience to believe. So book your Test drive for Polestar 3 [e-mail] we're back with Prof. G Markets. The race to pass the big beautiful bill continues with Republican senators working around the clock to answer to Trump's July 4 deadline. By the time you hear this, the Senate may have already passed the bill back to the House. We're recording this Monday evening. We've talked at length about this bill, how it will increase the deficit, how it will make these cuts to Medicaid, how the proposed tax cuts will, put simply, make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I don't think we need to relitigate these issues. But seeing as the full bill was released to the public just after midnight on Friday. Over the weekend, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at one of the major surprises that is hidden in the bill, specifically one that has the potential to reshape the future of energy in America, which, as Scott and I discussed in yesterday's episode, is a very precarious situation. As I highlighted, the US Is producing less than half of the electricity that China produces, and 15 years ago those numbers were roughly equal. So if you believe that energy is core to prosperity and also geopolitical power, then you'd probably want to put your foot on the gas when it comes to investing in energy. And that might mean an acceleration in fossil fuel investment. We know Trump's a big fan of that. Drill, baby, drill, but also renewable energy investment. Because regardless of your opinions on climate change, the reality is we're going to run out of oil. That is just a fact and we therefore should probably be weaning ourselves off of it. So it might concern you that one of the biggest losers in this new bill is renewable energy. According to Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, who, by the way, you'll hear from in a moment, this is Quote, how you kill an industry. Tax credits for renewable energy will be eliminated by 2027. That is expected to reduce wind and Solar investment by 72%. It could also result in a net loss of nearly a half a trillion dollars in renewable capital investment. Meanwhile, there is a new provision which says that any new wind or solar project that doesn't fully disentangle its supply chain from China will face new excise taxes. For solar, the excise tax is 30%. For wind, it's 50%. Now, you might think, okay, that's fine. We're trying to lower dependence on China. And I would agree with that. The trouble is, though, because of our historical lack of renewable investment, we are at this point so intertwined with China that by implementing these taxes, in addition to canceling the clean energy credits, we will, on most accounts, be killing clean energy in America. According to Jason Grummett, CEO of the American Clean Power association, the new provision is, quote, so carelessly written and haphazardly drafted that the concern is it will create uncertainty and freeze the markets. Elon Musk, meanwhile, put it differently. He said the new bill is, quote, utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging the future. We wanted to understand more about what this bill will do, especially in terms of energy and renewables. So we spoke with Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan business group.

[Bob Keefe]

Well, look, if we ever wanted a plan to kill jobs, to turn away business investments in America to reduce energy supplies and make our country less competitive in the global marketplace, this is it. This is that plan, because it'll do all of those things. As you mentioned, not only does this eliminate tax credits that really have driven the biggest economic expansion in recent generations in this country, it adds taxes to the energy supplies that last year Provided More than 90% of all energy added to the grid, aka solar, wind, and batteries. This would levy a new tax on the power that's the cheapest and the fastest to deploy, and that currently accounts for about 90% of all the energy that utilities are putting on the grid.

[Zoe Schiffer]

I've seen some Republicans make the argument that if removing subsidies can kill your industry, then maybe that industry shouldn't exist in the first place. What would your response be to that argument?

[Bob Keefe]

Well, if that was the case, we should have killed the subsidies for oil and gas that have been around for 100 years. But that doesn't make sense because we need oil and gas right now. We need energy right now. And this is investing in American energy. America invests In a lot of things. Roads, schools, health care, what have you. Because it's fundamental to our economy. Energy is fundamental to our economy. And again, right now, the vast majority of energy that is being added to the grid is solar, wind and batteries. By the way, this also has the added effect of creating jobs, driving economic growth, including a whole lot of it in the Republican states and districts where these lawmakers are trying to kill the very bill that's bringing new opportunities to their communities. My organization for the past, the past three years now has been tracking clean energy project announcements around the country since the passage of these tax policies with the inflation Reduction Act. What we know is that businesses have invested more than $130 billion into more than 400 factories and other projects where we're now building solar panels we don't have to buy from China, where we're building batteries to store the, the energy that we can produce from the sun and the wind and use it overnight. Electric vehicles that are re energizing, if you will, the transportation industry. Three years, $130 billion worth of business investments, 400 factories, 120,000 jobs. All of those now are at risk.

[Zoe Schiffer]

Well, it looks like the bill will pass. So if this provision makes it in, what can we expect for the clean energy industry?

[Bob Keefe]

We know that these project cancellations will continue. We've already heard from major manufacturers of everything from cars to wind turbines to say that, and solar panels, for that matter, to say that, look, if this happens, we're going to have to scale back. We're going to have to put our plans on the shelves and we're going to take our investments to other countries. So we know that's happening. We also know again, what the electricity demand is like and the forecast for the future. And there's absolutely no way that we'll be able to meet those demands without a robust growth in solar batteries and wind. And okay, we can say, sure, well, let's build nuclear plants to produce that. Fine. Guess what? That's going to take about 15 years. We're talking about meeting demand tomorrow. Well, let's build natural gas plants, you know, quote, unquote, natural gas plants. Okay, that's fine. You can't get a gas turbine right now for five years, maybe seven years. And by the way, if you build a gas plant or a nuclear plant, the amount of energy that you would produce in a typical gas or nuclear plant, you can produce it with solar or wind and batteries, and you can do it for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time. You can build the equivalent of a solar power plant with battery storage and wind in about a year, year and a half. Right now, if you wanted to do that in a gas plant, it take you five to seven years. If you wanted to do it in a nuclear plant, it would take you 15 to 20 years and a whole hell of a lot more money to do it, which means higher cost to consumers.

[Ed Elson]

That was Bob Keefe, executive director of E2. In sum, yes, we do need more energy. And yes, we do need more renewable energy, especially if we are to compete with China. And this bill, by the looks of it, completely undermines America's ability to do that. So we'll be watching this throughout the week. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks for listening to Property Markets from the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Ed Elson. I'll see you tomorrow.