Topic: Energy & Renewable Energy
“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.
“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.
“There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed to aid in the “transition” away from politically disfavored industries and technologies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas operations very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables.”
I go into painstaking detail in Section 3.3 with regard to how renewables actually work, so I won’t repeat myself here.
Is the Biden administration making coal, oil, and natural gas operations expensive and inaccessible? No. In fact, U.S. oil production is at an all-time high under Joe Biden. It is true, however, that having to comply with environmental regulations does cost fossil fuel industries money. Hence the Heritage Foundation’s push for deregulation. They’re being pushed by the oil industry. In fact, Trump attempted to bribe 20 heads of the fossil fuel industry with deregulation and tax favors in exchange for a billion dollars for himself.
“The totality of…Trump, the fossil-fuel industry and a [conservative thinktank] Heritage Foundation blueprint advocate will put a dagger through efforts to avoid catastrophic warming,” said Joe Romm, a senior research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
“Trump promises to undo every constraint on global warming. Trump has pushed more lies and disinformation about climate change than anyone ever has.”
More:
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“The Secretary should initiate a HUD task force consisting of politically appointed personnel to identify and reverse all actions taken by the Biden Administration to advance progressive ideology.”
Carson does not detail here what these policies are, so let’s investigate what he could possibly mean by “progressive ideology” as it pertains to affordable housing:
Biden’s administration revived a rule designed to combat housing discrimination, which Trump derided as ‘Abolishing the Suburbs’. The goal of the rule was to promote integration and reduce racial discrimination for affordable housing.
HUD has promoted environmentally friendly policies in affordable housing, such as energy-efficient building codes. I’m guessing this one isn’t what Carson means, since this plan was announced in September 2024, after this document was written. The new rules expanded options for safe, affordable, and energy-efficient manufactured homes.
Biden-Harris efforts to expand affordable housing, rental assistance, and homelessness initiatives might be viewed as progressive and targeted for rollback.
Biden’s administration has focused on addressing systemic inequities in housing access based on race, gender, and LGBTQ+ identity, which probably qualifies as “woke” according to the Heritage Foundation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration supported eviction moratoriums and rental protections, which might also be perceived as a progressive stance in housing policy.
So we’ve come up with five concrete examples of Biden-era policies with regard to government housing assistance. Rolling these back would promote discrimination, racism, exacerbate climate change, and put people out on the street. Seems on-brand for Republicans.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.6: Department of Housing and Urban Development here.
“Repeal climate change initiatives and spending in the department’s budget request.”
Let’s make manufactured homes less efficient and less safe!
HUD under the Biden Adminstration has promoted environmentally friendly policies in affordable housing, such as energy-efficient building codes. I’m guessing this one isn’t what Carson means, since this plan was announced in September 2024, after this document was written. The new rules expanded options for safe, affordable, and energy-efficient manufactured homes.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.6: Department of Housing and Urban Development here.