Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump’s National Energy Emergency Is Here

And it won’t benefit renewables.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Donald Trump looked to further unleash American energy production as one of the first actions of his new term, signing an executive order declaring a “national energy emergency” among the litany of other actions and declarations he made on Monday.

Earlier, in his inaugural address, he boasted that the United States has “the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it.”

“We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again, right to the top, and export American energy all over the world,” Trump said.

The order describes an “active threat to the American people from high energy prices,” as “hostile state and non-state foreign actors have targeted our domestic energy infrastructure, weaponized our reliance on foreign energy, and abused their ability to cause dramatic swings within international commodity markets.” The order directs agency leaders to “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available to them, as well as all other lawful authorities they may possess” to facilitate U.S. energy production, including — but not limited to — activities on federal lands.

The Trump administration had earlier outlined its plans in a document posted to the White House website Monday morning, which promised regulatory reform not only for “energy production and use,” but also for “mining and processing of non-fuel minerals.”

The document said the purpose of the national energy emergency would be to “use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure.” In remarks in the days before the inauguration, Trump described the goal of declaring an energy emergency as enabling investors to more easily “build big plants, AI plants,” and that the U.S. needs to “double the energy that we already have — and it’s going to end up being more than that.”

That could mean waiving environmental rules — including undoing the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant emissions rules — in order to speed the building of power plants in order to power new data centers.

While the exact parameters of these plans are still being drawn and will probably require either months-long rulemaking processes or legislation or both, by Monday morning, clean energy and environmental groups have already started to weigh in.

“On his first day back in the White House, President Trump is trying to turn back the clock on America’s clean energy leadership at the expense of American people and their health,” Debbie Weyl, the acting United States director of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement following the president's address to the nation. “If realized, President Trump’s actions would sacrifice the United States’ competitiveness globally, raise energy prices for American families, and pollute our air. Pledging to roll back climate policies that have created more than 400,000 good-paying American jobs will only hurt workers and our economy.”

On the other hand, at least portions of the clean energy industry are seeing the bright side of Trump’s emphasis on energy maximalism.

“A promise to achieve greater energy abundance in America must include leveraging the incredible, proven power of advanced energy technologies. 96% of all the new electricity added to America’s power grid in 2024 was provided by advanced energy, the lowest-cost way to reliability meet growing electricity demand,” Heather O’Neill, the president and chief executive of the trade group Advanced Energy United, said in a similarly timed statement.

“Our power grid faces real challenges, and at a moment when wildfires and extreme temperatures threaten lives across the country, it’s clearer than ever that we need to deepen our investments in advanced energy solutions that increase resilience and lower costs. We urge the Administration to embrace the market forces and tax cuts that are empowering states to meet their energy needs and goals.”

When the White House published the text of the emergency declaration, however, it became clear that Trump took a narrow view of what kinds of energy might serve to mitigate the situation: “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.” No hydrogen, no solar, and no wind.

While the newly inaugurated Trump administration has already taken a dramatic rhetorical turn in how it treats the oil and gas industry compared to Biden’s, it’s less clear that production can actually be meaningfully increased. While the Biden administration was stingy in opening up public lands for fossil fuel exploration — often doing so only under political or legal pressureoil and gas production hit record levels while Biden was in office.

Any Biden administration efforts to curtail fossil fuel production faced legal and political pushback. In the first week of his presidency, Biden issued a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on public lands, which was quickly halted by a federal judge. During the drafting of the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin insisted on oil and gas lease sales as a condition of his support, and then on opening up Willow, the oil project on Alaska’s North Slope, for drilling by ConocoPhillips. At the same time, gas prices soared to over $5 a gallon following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading the Biden administration to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a tool to bring down oil prices, selling almost 200 million barrels.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve now has just under 400 million barrels, well short of its legal limit of 714 million. Trump has promised to refill it, which would be a boon to American domestic oil producers, although this would likely require a Congressional appropriation.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the signing of the executive order declaring a national energy emergency.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Use code: LABORDAY to save 20%.
Subscribe to access Heatmap’s exclusive polling and expert analysis of energy, climate change, and sustainability, now just $99/year $79.20/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Hotspots

People Who Hate Renewables Hate Data Centers, Too

And more thoughts on the week’s most notable fights around project development.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Pinal County, Arizona – If you can’t build a solar or a wind farm somewhere, it’s really hard to get a data center built there too.

  • That’s the lesson readers should take away from the situation in Pinal County, where historically speaking at least 5 solar projects have been withdrawn over the years after facing local opposition, according to Heatmap Pro data. You should expect some data centers to potentially wind up in the same graveyard.
  • On Wednesday, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors rejected the La Osa Energy Center, a large proposed data center and gas-fired power complex. The board in this deep red rural desert community is rock-ribbed Republican. Only one supervisor on the board dissented, citing private property rights concerns.
  • The county currently has a restrictive ordinance against data center development unless they are in industrial areas, but has not yet approved a project since the ordinance was crafted, making this now a de facto no-go zone for developers. This went against the requests of the county zoning board, which recommended making the project site as industrial. If that pattern sounds familiar to you, that’s because you recognize it from the many cases we’ve seen in solar and wind development where political officials similarly override zoning staff.

2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Thousands of miles away from Arizona, a similar division is dominating the fight over whether to enact a 2-year moratorium on data centers in the county home of South Bend.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

What Nevada’s Democratic Candidate for Governor Would Do About Data Centers

A conversation with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford

Aaron Ford.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford, the Democratic candidate for governor in the state. His campaign reached out recently asking if I wanted to chat about what he’d want to do on data center and energy policy, which is essentially catnip for a reporter like me. So we hopped on the phone and chatted about his approach to regulation as he seeks to oust the sitting GOP governor Joe Lombardo.

The following conversation was lightly edited and abridged for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Top Five States to Watch for Clean Energy Policy

What’s the matter with Wisconsin?

The Texas statehouse and clean energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The most important states to watch for the future of renewable energy policy sit at the nexus of the data center backlash.

Over the last week, I’ve poured over what I believe to be the top five most important spaces to watch for all things utility-scale solar, battery storage and transmission development: Texas, California, Arizona, Alabama and Wisconsin. I selected these five states because they either have some of the largest generation capacity (Texas, California, Arizona) or crucial statewide elections that could decide not only the future of renewable energy in the state but elsewhere across the country (Alabama, Wisconsin).

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow