Happy Clean Energy Week

The CSPC Dispatch - Sept 19th, 2025 — Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress

Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA), member of the Conservative Climate Caucus, speaks at a National Clean Energy Week event in Washington D.C. (Photo Credit: Robert W. Gerber)

On the morning of September 17 at a fancy ballroom in Washington DC, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) took the stage at a symposium marking National Clean Energy Week. Her intent was to deliver remarks emphasizing that American energy security depends on an “all of the above” approach, i.e., one that includes both hydrocarbons and renewable energy. As she began speaking, protesters jumped on stage chanting climate crisis slogans. Security On the morning of September 17 at a fancy ballroom in Washington DC, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) took the stage at a symposium marking National Clean Energy Week. Her intent was to deliver remarks emphasizing that American energy security depends on an “all of the above” approach, i.e., one that includes both hydrocarbons and renewable energy. As she began speaking, protesters jumped on stage chanting climate crisis slogans. Security jumped into action and the video feed went black. Sen. Murkowski was able to finish her speech, but the same protestors later tried to prevent her car from leaving the venue.

Energy policy is a heated topic that elicits passion and vitriol because the choices involve difficult tradeoffs in terms of jobs, energy prices, land use, and the environment. The partisan noise from the left or right can drown out moderate, rational voices. President Trump has loudly criticized renewables, notably calling wind turbines an “economic and environmental disaster.” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has said repeatedly that solar and wind penetration have increased electricity prices. While this might be true in an isolated case, this claim is largely false. In fact, wind and solar energy generally cost less to deploy than other forms of energy and help fill energy demand and hedge against oil and gas price risk. Furthermore, many farmers and ranchers depend on off-grid wind or solar power.

The Trump Administration seeks to overturn Biden’s green agenda, eliminating climate targets and clean energy tax credits and pledging to increase hydrocarbon drilling and coal mining. He also directed U.S. export credit and development finance agencies to eliminate their ban on coal investments – a move that goes against U.S. commitments to a 2015 OECD pact. President Trump froze wind energy permitting on federal lands and said he would revoke three offshore wind permits that were approved under the Biden Administration. The Department of Energy issued a public notice that it is considering raising tariffs on imported wind turbine equipment, which would hurt U.S. industry while it is trying to build more domestically.

However, markets and geopolitics have a way of bringing a dose of reality to a president’s ambitions. For example, President Biden’s effort to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions coincided with record U.S. oil and gas production, spurred by global demand. His decision to pause LNG export approvals during a campaign year looked self-defeating as Europe worked to wean itself off Russian natural gas. Trump Administration will soon reckon with the potential costs of their efforts to sideline renewable energy. The first cost relates to jobs and the economy. Wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear produced more than 40 percent of U.S. electricity output in 2024. The government’s own energy statistical agency reported that developers foresee that half of new U.S. energy production will be solar in 2025. That translates to around 3.5 million clean energy jobs, many of them in red states like Texas, which is the top wind energy producer in the nation. America’s clean energy sector has been a major magnet for foreign investment. Meanwhile, a recent glut of oil in global markets and relatively flat prices per barrel have cooled any incentive for companies to expand their drilling operations. (Note: this could change at any time). The second cost is geostrategic: there is a global market for clean energy, driven by European and Asian customer demand and government regulations. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) told symposium audience that U.S. industry has opportunities to compete effectively in this space “and we can’t let China lead.” Sustainable aviation fuels based on ethanol are filling the market need for jet fuel while supporting farmers, according to Lindsay Fitzgerald of Colorado-based company Gevo.

The third cost is the impact on overall energy security. America needs more abundant, reliable and affordable energy. Forecasters are predicting soaring electricity demand, with 80% of the need coming from new data centers and 20% from advanced manufacturing and EVs. Industry experts agree that the only way to meet the nation’s power needs and create true energy security is an “all of the above” approach that includes oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar. America’s big energy companies are all invested in renewables, putting their expertise to work on geothermal, biodiesel, hydrogen, and carbon capture solutions, for example.

Upgrades to the power distribution network are also vital, alongside deployment of innovative energy storage and smart grid technologies. (Extreme weather from climate change only makes this challenge more complex and more urgent.) There seems to be growing bipartisan support for streamlining the permitting process to build out America’s energy/electricity infrastructure; clean energy groups are teaming up with oil and gas companies to support Congressional efforts on this front. Of course, permitting needs buy-in from local communities, but national environmental groups have been able effectively veto projects by tying up approvals in courts.

The future of energy security and economic prosperity depends on diverse sources of energy deployed where they can be most useful. The realities make it increasingly harder to have a black and white view of energy policy. Ideally, Washington would craft an energy policy that is strategic and forward-thinking, meeting the needs of a diverse geographic and economic landscape, with built-in redundancies to cushion market disruptions. It should also create a stable environment for private capital investment without punishing the market. ImpactAlpha reported that policy reversal in Washington has caused the cancellation of an estimated $30 billion of investment in EV, battery, clean energy and other projects – although some of the EV battery pull back is due downward adjustments in the demand forecast. CEO of Crux Climate Alfred Johnson told the September 17 forum, “Government should set the table, then step out of the way.”