Section 3.3: Department of Energy & Related Commissions
“Access to affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is vital to America’s economy, national security, and quality of life. Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance, which began in the first decade of the 2000’s, transformed the United States from a net energy importer (oil and natural gas) to energy independence and then energy dominance. Americans now face energy scarcity, an electric grid that is less than reliable, and artificial shortages of natural gas and oil despite massive reserves within the United States – all of which has led to higher prices that burden both the American people and the economy.”
This is a lot to process, so I walk through this claim one statement at a time in the full analysis below. In short, McNamee’s opening premise is not only flawed, but off-base as well.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies.”
Nope. See full analysis linked below for why. McNamee goes on to double down on his misleading claims/lies about America being dependent on China for energy (false), and the idea that green energy policies create an artificial energy scarcity (also false.) In addition to safeguarding the future of our planet, the economic implications of investing in clean energy are very positive:
“Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.” [Source]
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources.”
This is a lot to digest. In context, he’s arguing here for the Department of Energy cutting all federal funding into research and development for renewable energy. He specifically mentions cutting funding for the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or consolidating it into another entity. SPR is the world’s largest supply of of emergency crude oil, designed to reduce the impact of disruptions in oil supplies. It is unclear why he’s making this recommendation.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OCED (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations). OCED was created to fund large-scale projects that demonstrate the viability of emerging clean energy technologies, helping them reach commercial scale (deploying these technologies into the market.)
McNamee wants to eliminate the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, which provides subsidies to local governments and communities for clean energy.
McNamee wants to eliminate ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which funds high-risk, high-reward energy projects aimed at developing innovative technologies that could transform the energy sector.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OGD (Office of Grid Deployment), which focuses on modernizing and improving the electrical grid, including enhancing its resilience and reliability. This is DIRECTLY at odds with his stated goal of improving the resilience and reliability of the electrical grid.
McNamee wants to eliminate the DOE loan program, which provides loans and loan guarantees to innovative energy projects, often aimed at clean energy technologies like solar, wind, and advanced batteries.
As for the suggested focus for the remaining offices that he’s not killing, he’s saying that the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management) should focus on fundamental research in fossil energy, rather than funding carbon capture projects. He’s saying that the NE (Office of Nuclear Energy) should focus on basic nuclear research rather than advancing commercial nuclear technologies. He’s saying that the OE (Office of Electricity) should prioritize cybersecurity and physical security of the grid, instead of grid modernization efforts. Finally, he’s saying that the EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) should focus on scientific advancements rather than deploying renewable energy technologies commercially.
Whew! Now that we’ve unraveled the WHAT, you can find the WHY in the linked analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“DOE should focus on providing all Americans with access to abundant, affordable, reliable, and secure energy, and DOE should manage its employees so that everyone is treated fairly based on his or her talent, skills, and hard work.”
This is an absolutely hysterical statement, considering that none of McNamee’s proposed policies support abundant, affordable, reliable, or secure energy, and more broadly, the Heritage Foundations policy proposals do not support everyone being treated fairly.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“The next Administration should make U.S. energy dominance a key component of its foreign policy while ensuring that domestic and international goals are aligned. American energy dominance will allow the United States to secure energy for its citizens, markets for its energy exports, and access to new energy natural resources and will provide tools for U.S. policymakers to assist our allies and deter our adversaries.”
As detailed above, killing renewable energy in the U.S., when other countries are forging forward with it, will not result in “American energy dominance.” It will result in the exact opposite. We’ll be left behind, while other countries take over that market share. In the near future, when fossil fuels run out, we’ll be forced to buy renewable energy technologies from countries that didn’t do this (like China) because we didn’t spend the last 25 years investing in American innovation. This proposal is 100% ludicrous, considering McNamee’s previous proposals. The two notions are diametrically opposed.
McNamee goes on to detail similarly dissonant goals and policies. Meaning, it will be literally impossible to achieve his stated goals, using his proposed policies. As I pointed out on the Material Contributors page, McNamee has a history of nonsensical positions:
McNamee drew fire from clean energy advocates and lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in late 2018 when a video surfaced of his comments at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin. At the free-market group’s event, McNamee emphasized the need for public awareness that “fossil fuels are not something dirty, something we need to get away from,” but instead are the “key to our prosperity” and a “clean environment.” He said “renewables, when they come on and off, it screws up the whole physics of the grid.” He also decried the “tyranny” of environmental groups that back renewable power (E&E News PM, Nov. 20, 2018)
Read that again, but slower. “Fossil fuels are the key to a clean environment.” This statement is bonkers.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“The U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be updated and reinvigorated if we are to be able to deal effectively with threats from China, Russia, and other adversaries.”
McNamee goes on to mandate that we “Fund the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads, including the production of plutonium pits in quantity”, “Expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors to ensure that the Navy has the nuclear propulsion it needs to secure America’s strategic interests”, and “End ineffective and counterproductive nonproliferation activities like those involving Iran and the United Nations.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 404, bulleted list.)
This proposal is problematic from geopolitical, environmental, economic, and ethical perspectives. I break down the consequences of McNamee’s recommended actions in the full analysis linked below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Though CESER is properly focused on the threat to the grid from inverter-based resources like wind and solar, it needs to focus on the entire energy system, including the interdependence between natural gas and electric generation and cybersecurity.”
This is within the context of making reforms to cybersecurity efforts. “Inverter-based resources” means energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines that generate direct current (DC) electricity, but must be converted to alternating current (AC) energy to be compatible with the existing electrical grid. Inverter-based systems, while essential for the integration of renewables, introduce certain challenges because they don’t inherently provide the same type of synchronous stability (like frequency regulation) that traditional generators do.
Are renewables a “threat to the grid”? It’s true that improperly managed, they don’t provide inertia in the same way and are therefore less stable in the absence of proper controllers. Traditional power plants have large, rotating turbines that provide inertia, which helps stabilize the grid by automatically maintaining the frequency (usually 60Hz in the U.S.). Inverters can offer synthetic inertia and other forms of frequency support, but they require advanced control systems and careful grid integration. So it’s possible and manageable, a fact that McNamee does not admit.
Renewable energy isn’t inherently a threat, but the grid does need to be modernized to accommodate a higher share of renewables. This includes better energy storage solutions (like batteries), improved grid infrastructure, and demand response systems that can adjust electricity use based on availability. Increasing renewable energy sources diversifies the energy mix, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing energy security.
While renewable resources do pose technical challenges (due to their intermittency and the way they interact with the grid), framing them as a “threat” overlooks the potential for grid modernization, technological advances, and the broader benefits of transitioning to clean energy. It’s baseless fearmongering on McNamee’s part.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“OE administers grant programs for things like energy storage and the testing of grid-enhancing technologies (GETs). These programs should be eliminated.”
This is more shortsightedness / caving to baseless fearmongering on McNamee’s part. He goes on to argue that the NE (Office of Nuclear Energy) should be severely limited in scope, such that it has no influence over commercial/private sector nuclear energy. This is another area where deregulation could pose existential threats. There is no good reason to do this.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“Eliminate carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) programs. Despite the recent expansion of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) to $87 per ton, most carbon capture technology remains economically unviable, although private-sector innovations are on the horizon.”
Is CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage) really “economically unviable”? No, that’s an oversimplification. Right now, it’s true that the cost of capturing, transporting, and storing CO2 is relatively high, at around $40-$100 per ton. Adding to the cost and complexity is that we (currently) lack the infrastructure to support it on a huge scale. Building out the infrastructure would require significant investment. The investment doesn’t always come from private sectors, because the upfront costs of installing CCUS systems are high, especially where profit margins are already tight or regulatory pressure is insufficient to force investment in carbon mitigation.
The U.S. government has introduced incentives like the 45Q tax credit McNamee mentions above, which provides up to $87 per ton of CO2 captured and stored, to make CCUS more economically viable. This tax credit helps reduce the cost gap between current CCUS technologies and other carbon mitigation strategies. McNamee is proposing ending this.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.