Media coverage of President Donald Trump’s recommended Department of Energy budget has been predictably negative. It has focused heavily on his proposed cuts, with the word “slash” appearing in numerous headlines. But his budget is more accurately described as a major policy shift–and a very beneficial one.
If Congress passes this budget so the president can sign it into law, then it’s goodbye to using the department to impose an unpopular and expensive energy transition on the American people, and hello to a policy of energy abundance and dominance.
The White House suggested canceling over $15 billion in funding for an assortment of programs that forced unreliable and economically unsustainable so-called green energy programs into our energy infrastructure. This is a win for American taxpayers and energy users.
These programs are not only expensive, they displace reliable and affordable energy sources such as coal and natural gas with intermittent energy, mostly wind and solar. Were America to continue down this road, it will be only a matter of time before the nation experiences blackouts similar to the one in Spain last month, as well as an expansion of energy rationing–which some parts of the country have already seen at times of peak summer demand.
These proposed cuts should also be applauded. While more details will emerge, it seems like the administration is moving away from using taxpayer money to push technologies into the market and instead focusing on developing new cutting-edge technologies and solving more basic, underlying technological and scientific questions.
This is the kind of work that can be broadly applicable throughout the energy industry. It could even result in breakthroughs that the private sector could then commercialize and make available to the public.
If this budget does reflect a shift in focus away from commercialization and towards more basic research, the nation will be much better off. It means that American companies, rather than politicians and government officials, will decide what energy sources are used.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that closing the Department of Energy is the next step. But it does mean that many more cuts could likely be made in future budgets. Such cuts would allow the federal government to focus on what it does best, while leaving other functions to the men and women in our energy sector–who have brought us energy dominance. Let’s hope that Congress gets the message and passes the president’s proposed budget.
Jack Spencer is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.