“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 395, paragraph 2.) 

Let’s walk through this one statement at a time.

“Access to affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is vital to America’s economy, national security, and quality of life.” Yep. Factual and broadly accepted. We’re on board so far.

“Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis….”

No. While some government policies, such as the shift toward renewable energy and regulations on fossil fuel extraction, have contributed to changes in energy markets, labeling this as a “new energy crisis” caused solely by these policies is misleading. Several factors beyond policy decisions have contributed to energy price fluctuations and supply issues, including:

• Global supply chain disruptions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which caused disruptions in global oil and natural gas markets.
• Fluctuations in demand for oil and gas as economies have reopened.

Are we in an energy crisis, though? Yes, but it’s global and largely due to demand bouncing back faster than supply could keep up after the pandemic.

“Despite the world having already weathered several energy crises, the one we are living through now is the first truly global one due to the interconnections in energy markets. The crisis has emerged after a decade of under-investment in legacy energy sources, in addition to a very slow scale-up of renewables compensating for that gap. This has led to a perfect storm, via a mix of shocks following the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While energy should be affordable, secure and sustainable, this “energy triangle” is under strong pressure on all three fronts. There is an insufficient buffer in the system to absorb recent shocks without unprecedented price rises.” Source: World Economic Forum¹

“…just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance, which began in the first decade of the 2000s, transformed the United States from a net energy importer to energy independence and then energy dominance.”

Here’s the accurate part: The U.S. energy renaissance—driven largely by advances in fracking and horizontal drilling—did lead to a massive increase in domestic oil and natural gas production, reducing dependence on foreign energy. By 2019, the U.S. became a net energy exporter.

Here’s the inaccurate part: The term “energy dominance” is debatable. While the U.S. has produced more energy, it has remained linked to global energy markets and prices, meaning true “energy independence” has not been fully realized. The U.S. still imports oil and depends on foreign markets for both imports and exports.

As I point out in Section 3: The General Welfare² when the author argues for “restoring our energy independence”, fossil fuels are a finite resource³. Further, I’m not sure how they believe they’re going to “restore” our energy independence, when it soared to a 70-year high in 2022⁴ – under Joe Biden. (Although I’ll admit that leaving out the context is disingenuous here – we achieved energy independence under Trump, because of the shale boom that began in 2005. Biden has presided over even higher levels.)

Forbes underscores the importance of consistent terminology when we talk about energy independence:

“It’s important to understand that the following two statements are each true under a consistent definition of energy independence.

1. If the U.S. is not energy independent under Joe Biden, then it was never energy independent under Donald Trump.
2. If the U.S. was energy independent under Donald Trump, then energy independence has grown to record levels under Joe Biden. 

[Source]⁵

“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.”

There is no widespread energy scarcity in the U.S. While energy prices have fluctuated, the U.S. remains a major energy producer and has ample domestic reserves of oil and natural gas. The increased price of energy, especially in the context of the global oil and gas markets, does not equate to a lack of available energy.

“The average U.S. customer loses power less than two times per year for a total of less than five hours, which represents 99.95% reliability.”[Source]⁶

The U.S. electrical grid (which is less a national grid than a series of regional grids) faces challenges, particularly due to extreme weather events and aging infrastructure, but this is not solely due to government policies on energy production. The push for renewable energy will help, not harm, reliability in the long term. (Texas has severe grid problems, because they decentralized and are not connected to the rest of the country’s grid. Additionally, bad (Republican) policies have failed time and time again⁷ to shore it up.) The Texas power grid is a master class example of why not everything should be left up to the states. They failed to winterize their equipment, so the ice storm knocked out the power, which knocked out natural gas, which relies on electricity. [Source]⁸

The reason I say “bad Republican policies” were responsible for this, is because 1) Greg Abbott is in charge of Texas. He is a Republican. Was he warned to winterize the grid⁹ or this would happen? Yes. Did he fail to do so? Also yes. Deregulation also played a part in this series of unfortunate events:

“Texas officials knew winter storms could leave the state’s power grid vulnerable, but they left the choice to prepare for harsh weather up to the power companies — many of which opted against the costly upgrades. That, plus a deregulated energy market largely isolated from the rest of the country’s power grid, left the state alone to deal with the crisis, experts said.”

Result? “More than 4.5 million homes and businesses were left without power, some for several days. At least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly, with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.” [Source]¹⁰

McNamee’s claim of “artificial shortages” implies that government policy alone is limiting access to natural gas and oil. In reality, factors such as market volatility, OPEC production decisions, global supply chains, and environmental concerns all play a role. Furthermore, oil and gas production remains high, though global events like the war in Ukraine and refinery shutdowns due to the pandemic also influence supply and prices.

“All of which has led to higher prices that burden both the American people and the economy.”

Energy prices did rise significantly in 2021 and 2022, driven by various factors:

• Global energy demand rebounding faster than supply after the pandemic.
• Geopolitical factors like Russia’s war in Ukraine disrupting natural gas supplies, especially in Europe, which had a ripple effect globally.
• Inflation caused by supply chain disruptions and increased energy demand.

However, these price increases cannot be attributed solely to U.S. government policies. Global factors, including decisions by OPEC+ to limit oil production, have played a major role. Furthermore, gas prices are dropping all over the country.¹¹

While some government policies have encouraged a shift toward cleaner energy, the claim that they are solely responsible for an “energy crisis” and “artificial shortages” is inaccurate and oversimplifies a complex global situation, none of which can be blamed exclusively on U.S. domestic policy.

Whew! Off to a good start. Right away, McNamee’s premise is not simply flawed, but off-base.

“The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 395, paragraph 3.)

Nope. See above. He 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]¹²

Need more?

“About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4.5 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030. [Source]¹²

He goes on to say that the National Labs have been “too focused on climate change and renewable energy”, which precedes his mission statement for a reformed Department of Energy, which focuses mostly on “developing new nuclear weapons and naval nuclear reactors.” I’m putting two and two together with the reactors, but how is developing new nuclear weapons germane to energy policy?

The answer is that, according to McNamee, the DoE was founded in part to do so, and he wants to return to its original purpose as set forth in 1977 – this would be: 

• Engaging in basic and fundamental science and research through the 17 National Laboratories;
• Cleaning up the Manhattan Project and Cold War nuclear material and weapons sites;
• Developing sites for the storing of civilian nuclear waste; and
• Developing new nuclear weapons and naval reactors through the semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).

(Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, pages 398 and 399.)

This is living in the past – “fundamental science and research” nowadays absolutely encompasses climate change. The U.S. finally did clean up the Staten Island portion of the Manhattan Project¹³ – at the end of 2023, more than eighty years later. We’re still working on other locations where radioactive waste is stored.

The ultimate goal for spent nuclear waste storage is permanent disposal, but we don’t currently have a facility for this. So, I don’t disagree with the goals of developing ways to permanently dispose of nuclear waste, or to clean up the Manhattan Project and similar efforts. I touched on the Law of Diminishing Returns in Section 2.1¹⁴, but I’ll repeat it here:

The United States has a nuclear arsenal of around 3,708 warheads¹⁵ as of 2024. Number of nuclear bombs it would take to completely wipe out humanity? About 400.¹⁶

This tells me that after about the 400th nuclear bomb you own, there’s little point in having many beyond that, is there?

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, pages 400 and 401.)

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, let’s discuss the WHY.

The ultimate driving principle behind this appears to be one of limited government intervention, as it pertains to energy commercialization. As such, McNamee is arguing for pulling government funding for industries or technologies that might already be viable or able to compete on the open market. He’s advocating for the private sector to drive innovation and commercialization without government subsidies (the belief being that if a technology is economically viable, private investment will occur without government investment being necessary.)

Here is the first problem with that. McNamee is operating from a position of bad faith – his argument only makes sense if you see investment into clean energy as a bad investment, and not economically viable, which we know isn’t true:

“In 2022, wind turbines operating in all 50 states generated more than 10% of the net total of the country’s energy. That same year, investments in new wind projects added $20 billion to the U.S. economy.” [Source]¹⁷

“As of 2017, costs for utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar power had dropped to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Cost targets for residential- and commercial-scale solar had dropped to $0.16 and $0.11 per kWh, respectively. (In comparison, in 2017, electricity produced by fossil fuels typically ran from $0.05 to $0.17 per kWh).” [Source]¹⁸

Just for fun, let’s talk about the economic viability of fossil fuels, while we’re here.

“While the U.S. spends over $1 trillion annually on fossil fuels, the harmful effects of burning them continue to accumulate economic costs. In fact, the U.S. spent $649 billion on fossil fuel subsidies alone in 2015.5 Research suggests air pollution in Europe generates economic costs of $1.6 trillion a year in diseases and death.

Combining expenditures on fossil fuels, healthcare costs, and environmental degradation, it is estimated the true cost of fossil fuels is $5.2 trillion a year globally.” [Source]¹⁸

The additional problems with doing what he’s proposing include slowing down clean energy innovation. Government programs like ARPA-E and the DOE Loan Program provide crucial support for emerging clean energy technologies that are not yet profitable enough to attract private investment. Cutting these programs could stifle innovation in areas like solar, wind, battery storage, and carbon capture. Without government support, technologies that are vital for decarbonizing the economy and mitigating climate change might develop more slowly (or not at all), which could make it harder to meet climate goals (which McNamee and his Heritage Foundation cohorts do not care about in the slightest to begin with.)

Eliminating funding for the Office of Grid Deployment (OGD) will slow efforts to modernize the U.S. electric grid. A modern grid is essential for integrating renewable energy sources (which are intermittent, like solar and wind) and ensuring resilience in the face of extreme weather events. The U.S. grid is aging, and without investment, it will become unreliable, leading to power outages and higher electricity costs for consumers. As we saw from the Texas example above, leaving modernization efforts to the states/privatization didn’t result in modernizing their grid or even making it acceptably functional. It resulted in death.

By cutting programs that encourage the commercialization of clean energy, the U.S. will become – at least temporarily until fossil fuels are depleted – more dependent on fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal, which are subject to global market fluctuations and pose long-term environmental risks. This approach purposely makes it more difficult for the U.S. to transition to a sustainable energy system, increasing carbon emissions and worsening the impacts of climate change.

The U.S. has historically been a global leader in energy innovation, especially in the fields of renewable energy and advanced technologies like electric vehicles and carbon capture. Cutting funding for commercialization could allow other countries, such as China and the European Union, to take the lead in developing and exporting these technologies. As a result, the U.S. could fall behind in the global clean energy race, losing out on significant economic opportunities in emerging industries.

It’s also going to cost Americans jobs: Clean energy sectors, such as solar and wind, have been significant drivers of job growth in recent years. If we eliminate subsidies and commercialization programs, the clean energy workforce will shrink, leading to job losses in these sectors.

It’s a local health risk as well as a global one. If the U.S. reduces its investment in clean energy and energy efficiency programs, it could result in higher carbon emissions and pollution, leading to worsening air quality and public health outcomes, especially in communities near fossil fuel plants. The focus on traditional energy resources could perpetuate environmental issues like oil spills, air pollution, and water contamination, while clean energy offers solutions with fewer environmental risks.

In short, the harms and consequences FAR outweigh the (nonexistent) positives for this proposal, which promises absolutely no benefit other than adherence to an outdated worldview, and outdated and environmentally/economically harmful technologies. When it comes to public health and safety, I don’t think slavish devotion to a market-driven energy policy should take precedence.

McNamee goes on to argue for more policies that boost fossil fuels and harm renewable energy, ignoring climate change.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 402, paragraph 1.)

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.

Now, we’re on to the new policies McNamee is proposing.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 402, paragraph 3.)

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 Contributors¹⁹ 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)²⁰

Read that again, but slower. “Fossil fuels are the key to a clean environment.” This statement is bonkers.

McNamee goes on to propose figuring out permanent nuclear waste storage and disposal, a concept with which I agree.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 404, paragraph 2.)

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.)

Let’s break down the consequences of McNamee’s recommended actions. This proposal is problematic from geopolitical, environmental, economic, and ethical perspectives.

First, it’s logically going to escalate a global nuclear arms race. Funding new nuclear warheads and increasing production of plutonium pits (the core of nuclear weapons) could signal a new arms race. Other nuclear powers, such as Russia and China, might feel compelled to expand or modernize their arsenals in response, potentially increasing global tensions and the risk of nuclear conflict. This approach undermines decades of arms control agreements aimed at reducing nuclear stockpiles and preventing proliferation.

Second, we’re potentially encouraging bad actors. Expanding nuclear production could contribute to the global proliferation of nuclear technology, as it encourages the development and spread of nuclear materials. Increased production capacity could raise concerns about how secure these materials are, and whether they might fall into the hands of non-state actors or be stolen.

Third, it’s going to cost a bomb, if you’ll excuse the pun. The cost of producing new nuclear warheads and plutonium pits is extremely high. Rather than investing billions in expanding the nuclear arsenal, these resources could be used to address other pressing issues, such as infrastructure, climate change, or modernizing conventional defense capabilities. The U.S. hasn’t manufactured pits regularly since 1989²¹.

Additionally, nobody has come up with a feasible plan to do this. The NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) has recommended increased pit production, but has thus far failed to provide a plan that meets Government Accountability Office standards. (See linked source above.)

“Using NNSA’s fiscal year 2023 budget justification, GAO identified at least $18 billion to $24 billion in potential costs for the 80-pit-per-year capability.”

They went further in explaining why they (GAO) conducted this study: “The United States has not regularly manufactured plutonium pits since 1989. Military and legal requirements direct DOE to have capacity to produce no fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030. NNSA plans to sustain this capability into the future. According to a May 2020 NNSA report to Congress, reestablishing a pit production capability is considered critical to maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. But because plutonium is dangerous and must be handled carefully, the production of pits for nuclear warheads is difficult and expensive. Officials testified in 2022 that 80 pits per year will not be achievable by 2030.”

Furthermore, these choices don’t address the primary threats of cyber warfare, climate-driven conflict, or non-state terrorism, which are more immediate risks to national security than the threat of nuclear war.

Ethically, the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is truly appalling. The catastrophic potential of even a limited nuclear conflict would result in massive civilian casualties and long-lasting environmental damage, which goes against international efforts to promote nuclear disarmament.

Let’s talk about McNamee’s proposal to expand the U.S. Navy and develop new nuclear naval reactors.

Expanding the U.S. Navy’s nuclear fleet and developing new nuclear reactors for naval propulsion introduces significant environmental and safety risks. Nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers require meticulous safety protocols and proper disposal of radioactive waste. Accidents or leaks involving nuclear reactors can lead to environmental disasters.

The more nuclear-powered ships there are, the greater the risk of accidents or mismanagement of nuclear fuel, which could have severe consequences for marine ecosystems and coastal populations.

While ensuring U.S. naval power is important, over-expanding the nuclear fleet might lead to strategic overreach. A larger, more aggressive naval presence could provoke adversaries and lead to military confrontations, especially in contested waters like the South China Sea or the Arctic.

Again, there’s the cost factor. Building and maintaining nuclear naval reactors is extremely costly, and these resources might be better spent on enhancing conventional forces, cyber capabilities, or addressing other areas of national defense that don’t carry the same environmental risks. Which is to say nothing of the opportunity costs – if we sink all of our resources into expanding the nuclear navy, it necessarily removes focus from other vital defense initiatives, such as modernizing conventional forces or investing in emerging technologies like AI, autonomous systems, and cyber defense, which are increasingly relevant to modern warfare.

According to the 2024 Homeland Threat Assessment²², nuclear war isn’t the greatest threat to National Security, so it’s unclear why McNamee wants to sink all of our resources into nuclear proliferation. The biggest threats to our security are currently terrorism, illegal drug trafficking, border security concerns, cyber attacks, foreign interference in election security, economic espionage, climate change, and AI misinformation and disinformation campaigns intended to disrupt and undermine the U.S. Note that nuclear warfare isn’t mentioned as a primary modern concern.

In terms of ending nonproliferation activities with Iran and the UN – all this would do is encourage nuclear proliferation globally, which is an ethical nightmare. He’s talking about withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal, here.

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), despite its flaws, was a significant diplomatic achievement that helped to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Ending such efforts could lead to Iran expanding its nuclear capabilities, destabilizing the Middle East, and prompting regional powers like Saudi Arabia or Turkey to pursue nuclear weapons of their own.

Likewise, disengaging from UN-led nonproliferation activities weakens global mechanisms that help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other states or non-state actors. The U.S. has traditionally played a key role in international nuclear diplomacy, and stepping back from this leadership could embolden other nations to flout nonproliferation norms.

Combined, this increases the risk of military and nuclear conflict. If countries like Iran pursue nuclear weapons without restraint, the U.S. or its allies (particularly Israel) may feel compelled to take military action to prevent nuclear development, which could spark a broader conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere. Additionally, other nuclear powers might react to the U.S. withdrawal from nonproliferation initiatives by scaling back their own commitments, leading to further global instability.

Ultimately, nonproliferation efforts are inherently multilateral, involving the cooperation of many nations to ensure nuclear materials are secured, weapons programs are monitored, and peaceful nuclear technology is promoted. By abandoning international efforts, the U.S. isolates itself from important partnerships and loses leverage in global diplomacy, ultimately reducing its influence in shaping the nuclear landscape.

In short, these are unethical proposals that will, at best, lead to global instability and the United States falling behind in modern military technology. At worst, these policies will result in nuclear war. I am trying to approach this analysis as neutrally as I can, but my worldview doesn’t allow for the use of nuclear weapons being okay or encouraged. I don’t feel like that’s an insane position.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 405, paragraph 2.)

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.

“OE administers grant programs for things like energy storage and the testing of grid-enhancing technologies (GETs). These programs should be eliminated.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 406, paragraph 2.)

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.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Energy and Related Commissions, Bernard L. McNamee, page 408, paragraph 5.)

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.

Like with any emerging technology, as technology improves and the scale grows, costs will decrease. Norway’s Longship Project²³ and Canada’s Boundary Dam²⁴ demonstrate that with the right policy framework, CCUS can become more cost-effective. The Boundary dam is a power plant equipped with CCUS, which captures about 90% of its own carbon emissions²⁵. The Longship Project is a full-scale CCUS operation, designed to capture, transport and store CO2 emissions from Norway’s industrial processes such as the Heidelberg Norcem plant (which manufactures cement), and the Fortum Oslo Varme, a waste-to-energy plant in Oslo.

Another way to make it more cost-effective? The “U” in CCUS stands for utilize – i.e., find profitable ways to use the captured CO2, thus generating money on both sides of the operation. For example, captured carbon can be used²⁶ to produce synthetic fuels, building materials, industrial products, and much more. These markets are still developing but could help offset the costs of capture and storage (plus, if you’re using more of it, you need to store less of it.)

As for McNamee’s “unviable” claim, that’s simply untrue. There are several operational CCUS projects worldwide that show the technology can be applied on a commercial scale. See the two examples I gave above, plus Petra Nova, in Texas, which is the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture system, capturing CO2 from coal power plants, and the Sleipner Project in Norway, which is a carbon storage operation on the North Sea, where CO2 from natural gas processing is injected into a saline aquifer. There are several other examples of CCUS technology working around the world.

Under “needed reforms” for the EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), McNamee proposes ending any funding that goes towards decarbonization or renewable resources (page 410, paragraph 3), eliminating all energy efficiency standards for appliances (page 410, paragraph 4), and finally, eliminating the EERE altogether (page 411, paragraph 1.)

Eliminating standards for appliances is simply wasteful of our natural resources. Assuming appliance manufacturers go back to no standards the moment they are allowed to, it’s also going to cost American households billions of dollars a year in increased utility costs²⁷, as well as increasing environmental impact. NPR calls it what it is – appliance standards have become a target in the culture wars between the right and the left (see linked source.) Trump has repeatedly claimed that newer appliances don’t work as well as the old ones:

“I had people saying they’d wash their dishes and they’d press the button five times, so in the end they’re probably wasting more water than if they did it once,” Trump said at a 2020 rally.”²⁸

His claims are incorrect. Research examining the quality of appliances subject to efficiency standards²⁹ finds “that prices declined while quality and consumer welfare increased³⁰, especially when standards become more stringent.” Extensive testing on appliances at Consumer Reports bears that out.

There’s a political strategy at work here, too. One example is installing condensing boilers in homes, which is already being done. They save the homeowner about 15% on their natural gas bills every month, but they cost a little more to install initially. That’s why gas utilities oppose the new standards for gas furnaces – they worry that either the extra cost will prompt people to stop using gas altogether – or, if they go with a more efficient boiler, the gas companies make 15% less per month from that customer. See above linked source 27 for more information on that particular example. My guess is that if you scratch an opposing opinion, you’ll find a natural gas lobbyist.

“Since 1980, the energy intensity of the US economy has been cut in half because of increasing efficiency, delivering more than $2,000 in savings per person. The Energy Department said the regulations it announced last year will save Americans $652 million per year when they go into effect.” [Source]³¹

In short, McNamee and the Heritage Foundation don’t care about the environment or saving consumers money. They care about making money for the donors they’re beholden to. (And that’s true about many politicians from either side to a certain extent.) If you need to tell who’s who, pay attention to who is doing the right thing, even though it may be costly, and who is doing the absolutely wrong and harmful thing, because it makes the rich richer.

The next pages are more of the same. Ignore the need for renewable energy and actively work to destroy the environment, with the exception of McNamee supporting nuclear waste cleanup efforts. Another big takeaway is that the federal government would no longer be investing in private companies who are working towards these ends, either. These policy proposals are so destructive to the environment that one can only conclude that destroying the environment is a primary intent, rather than simply collateral damage from greedy, shortsighted policies that ignore objective reality.