WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's been one year since President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act.

Despite its title, this law is the single biggest U.S. investment in addressing climate change and driving a transition to clean energy.

It steers billions in subsidies into everything from battery manufacturing to climate adaptation.

It contains tax incentives for people to buy electric cars and cleaner technologies in their homes, and it directs large investments to fight pollution in underserved communities.

So how is the law working, and what does it mean for the U.S.' climate commitments?

We're joined by one of the laws most ardent champions.

Leah Stokes is a political scientist at U.C.

Santa Barbara who studies and advocates for clean energy.

Leah Stokes, so good to have you back on the "NewsHour."

I wonder if you could just reflect on this anniversary at first.

I mean, after decades of disappointment and setbacks, the environmental and climate community got a piece of legislation like this pushed over the finish line with the president that nobody immediately thought was going to be an ally in that fight.

How is the community feeling this week, this anniversary?

LEAH STOKES, University of California, Santa Barbara: Well, getting any climate bill into law, onto President Biden's desk, it was brutal.

It took, in some count weeks, other counts, months, maybe years, and, as you said, decades.

It was really hard.

And this particular law stopped and started numerous times.

I will tell you there was a two-week period before it came out of nowhere being branded the Inflation Reduction Act where we all thought the bill was dead for real this time.

And there was real sadness across the climate community, because folks knew this was really the last, best chance that we had to pass a climate law.

So, seeing President Biden sign it a year ago, I mean, it was just monumental.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And what is it about the law?

I touched on some of the things it does, but there is a myriad set of incentives and subsidies here.

What stands out most to you?

LEAH STOKES: Well, the law is massive.

Sometimes, people will say it's $370 billion.

But that's not really true, because huge parts of the law are uncapped tax credits, meaning the more people decide to build factories in the United States and take advantage of incentives, the more the federal government will step up and help cost-share.

And that isn't just for factories and companies.

It's also for everyday people.

So, if people decide to get an electric vehicle or put in a heat pump, put solar on their roof, the federal government is going to help share the costs.

And that's as big as people make it.

So, this is huge, and it also includes $50 billion of rebates, direct payments that are going to flow largely to disadvantaged communities to help folks from all across the income spectrum get advantage of those clean energy technologies.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And how do we know how the law is working so far?

LEAH STOKES: Well, there are parts of the law, like the tax credits, that are already going out the door.

And so we can see upwards of $275 billion of private investments in everything from manufacturing batteries in the United States, to recycling those batteries, to solar projects, to wind projects, and wind manufacturing.

I mean, we have seen something like 175,000 new announced jobs.

And that's just on the corporate side.

For everyday people, we're seeing electric vehicle adoption like we have never seen before.

One in four cars sold in California right now is an electric vehicle.

If you look year over year, we have had a 74 percent jump in electric vehicle sales.

Same thing with solar panels.

They're just flying off the shelf.

So we're really starting to see that happen.

Now, there are parts of the law where the money hasn't gotten out the door yet.

And that's largely that money that I talked about, the $50 billion for disadvantaged communities.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You're a political scientist.

And so I want to ask you a politics question here.

One view of the IRA is that its political genius was steering billions of dollars for green energy into red states.

I'm going to put this chart up.

This shows how investments are flowing heavily to Republican districts, compared to Democratic districts.

How is that playing out?

LEAH STOKES: Part of the reason for that is that there are provisions in this law that steer money towards former fossil fuel communities, coal communities that have lost a lot of jobs and investment.

Why don't we try to build manufacturing there?

Why don't we try to put solar projects and wind projects in those kinds of communities?

That's what the law is doing.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And there have been some pockets of resistance to this.

We have seen some states push back and say, I don't want this federal money.

Others, we have seen local officials championing the projects that the money has delivered, while they actually had voted against the law.

Do you think this in the end will help convert the climate skeptics out there?

LEAH STOKES: Absolutely.

For too long, the fossil fuel industry has had a stranglehold over the Republican Party.

When you have so much campaign contributions flowing into one party, that really skews things, right?

So when we have clean energy technologies in Republican districts, that's going to shift things in the other direction.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One of the critiques of this law is that it is incredibly expensive and it is federal meddling in energy policy, and the argument being, if these technologies are going to live on their own, they should just live on their own in the marketplace.

And there was evidence before the IRA was passed that wind and solar prices were plummeting.

And so they argue, don't let the market be contaminated by sacks of federal dollars.

What do you make of that argument?

LEAH STOKES: I mean, fossil fuels have had federal subsidies for over a century.

Year after year, they take in more than $20 billion of federal subsidies.

And those continue to this day.

So it's not like the fossil fuel industry or the energy industry more broadly doesn't have subsidies.

And let's look at the cost of inaction on climate change.

Look at what's happening in Maui and Lahaina.

Entire communities are being devastated.

We have had 200 million Americans under extreme heat in the last few months.

We have had hundreds of millions of Americans experience these wildfires.

I mean, the cost of inaction is so much bigger than investing in clean energy technologies here in the United States.

And I think, over the long run, a lot of these Republican skeptics, they're going to start to see jobs in their district, investments.

And I think they're going to come along with the clean energy technologies of the 21st century.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Leah Stokes of U.C.

Santa Barbara, thank you so much for being here.

LEAH STOKES: Thanks so much for having me on.