America Needs a More Thoughtful Energy Conversation

By Heather Reams

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions recently hosted our annual Energy Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. The event brought together administration officials, lawmakers, energy producers, manufacturers, investors and reporters for conversations about where we’re headed on energy and what it will take to win the global energy race. I left thinking about how much the conversation around energy has changed in a relatively short period of time. 

Just a few years ago, discussions like this were framed almost entirely around climate politics. That’s no longer the case. The conversation now is much more grounded in economics, reliability, national security and America’s ability to compete globally. People are realizing that energy policy is tied to nearly every major challenge facing the country right now. Artificial intelligence came up constantly throughout the day. So did manufacturing, data centers and supply chains. The reason is simple: each of these things depend on energy—a lot of it. 

The United States is entering a period of enormous electricity demand growth. Companies are building new facilities, manufacturers are expanding domestic operations, entire sectors are being electrified and AI development is accelerating at a faster pace than many people expected. These trends are only putting more pressure on our energy system, and they aren’t slowing down anytime soon. That reality is forcing a more nuanced conversation in Washington. 

What I found refreshing at the summit was hearing people speak frankly about the challenges ahead instead of pretending easy answers exist. There were healthy disagreements in the room, but there was also broad agreement. The country needs to build more infrastructure and move projects faster if we want our energy supply to keep up with demand. 

That means transmission, generation, supply chains and critical minerals, and it also means newer technologies working together with advances in traditional energy resources. We’re no longer debating whether America should produce more energy. We’re debating how to do it responsibly and efficiently, while keeping costs manageable and the lights on. 

During the summit, Members of Congress emphasized the importance of expanding all forms of energy, while White House officials highlighted the Administration’s push to strengthen domestic manufacturing and lower energy prices. Meanwhile, industry leaders stressed the need for permitting reform and greater business certainty to help expedite energy projects, boost U.S. competitiveness and increase investment. 

On the international front, the U.S. is competing with China and other countries that are moving aggressively to secure global supply chains and dominate emerging industries. We cannot assume America will lead simply because we have in the past. Maintaining energy dominance requires investment, infrastructure and policies that make it possible to actually break ground and complete construction. 

That theme ran through the entire summit. The people in the room came from very different industries and backgrounds, but there was a shared understanding that delay has consequences. Projects stuck in limbo for years do not just affect developers, they cost jobs, deter investment and chip away at long-term economic growth. 

There’s a real value in simply creating space for these conversations to happen. Washington doesn’t always encourage thoughtful dialogue, especially on energy issues. Discussions can quickly turn partisan, and people retreat into talking points. That is part of the reason events like this are so important. We had reporters asking tough questions, lawmakers debating policy priorities and energy companies discussing technologies that are still years away from scaling commercially. Those exchanges are important because the challenges facing the energy sector are not getting smaller.  

America has enormous advantages—innovation, natural resources and companies willing to invest here. But none of that guarantees success. What we need is a clear strategy for meeting rising energy demand while staying competitive in industries that will shape the future economy. That not only requires serious policy discussions but it also a willingness to engage with people who may not agree on everything. That’s exactly the kind of conversation we hoped to encourage at this year’s summit, and one we need to continue having as a nation. 

Heather Reams is the president and CEO of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Jim Simpson
June 18, 2026 11:12 pm

Hi Heather – I’m an Aussie from Down Under & couldn’t agree with you more, though suggest what you & others fail to do (story tip) is to provide, for the want of a better description, the ‘final solution?’ What next?

I know, ‘final solution’ has an unpleasant connotation associated with dating back WWII, however, it if serves to capture your attention, good.

For my part, I have a long held the view that there’s a really simple, easy way forward that’s even fair (shock & horror!) to the Unreliables.

Not only must we (the USA & Australia), dump the “Net Zero” nonsense at the earliest opportunity, we need a clear path to follow relative to a RELIABLE & affordable energy future.

In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn’t any) we simply need to develop, then adopt, a sound, sensible Energy Policy. A simple, practical way forward that’s fair to all, including the Unreliables (of Wind & Solar-PVs).

An effective Energy Policy must be affordable, reliable & consistently available 24/7. It must be straightforward & market driven. Designed with the consumer’s interests as the central focus, rather than being shaped by the priorities of political parties and/or the power generation industry.

The key elements of such a sound, sensible Energy Policy should be built upon the following basic six principles;

• Technology Agnostic: The policy should NOT favor any specific technology. All sources – fossil fuels, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy, batteries & nuclear – should be entertained.

• Elimination of Subsidies & Discriminatory Legislation: All subsidies and/or legislation that advantages or disadvantages any particular technology MUST be removed/repealed. The market, through the independent choices of power generators, should determine which technologies they elect to employ. Their choice entirely & a level playing field that’s fair to all.

• Guaranteed Service Standards: Power generation contracts awarded via respective Regulators (eg the AEMO in Australia) & auction (eg; xx GWs/best $price contracted at least a month (more preferably) in advance) & must ensure a guaranteed 99.998% availability of supply in keeping with established Quality of Service (QOS) performance obligations.

• Accountability Through Penalties: Power generators who fail to meet contractual QOS obligations to face SIGNIFICANT financial penalties (in the $Ms), except in cases of force majeure due to natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or bush fires.

• Environmental Restoration Bonds: Generators must pay a substantial upfront bond to cover the costs of environmental restoration, including the decommissioning & removal of infrastructure & handling/disposal or recycling (e.g., solar PV panels & wind turbine blades), similar to well established practice within the mining industry by way of land restoration.

• Legislative Reform: Any anti-competitive legislation (that attempts to favor one technology over another) must be repealed to ensure a level playing field.

If the power generating industry finds the principles associated with such a sensible Energy Policy unpalatable, no problems, simply re-nationalize the industry & return it to whence it came i.e., the responsibility of respective State Govt’s & be done with it!

Easy.

What do you think?

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Simpson
June 19, 2026 6:37 am

There is never a final solution, just today’s solution.
Tomorrow’s situation will be different, so it’s possible that tomorrow’s solution will also be different.

michael fellion
Reply to  Jim Simpson
June 19, 2026 8:22 am

The history of state govt’s solution is frankly terrible as it all comes down to which politician can buy the most votes with some blame X claim. The only time it works is when the goal is clear and the mover and shakers make a buck off the method. Dams for water and power are one example. Sewers and sewage disposal are another, as to power it took government to get rid of the rats nest of power lines in early days of electricity so government is part of solving the problems..

Reply to  Jim Simpson
June 19, 2026 10:59 am

“In absence of any empirical evidence against CO2 (there isn’t any),…

There is much empirical evidence against CO2. Shown below is the home page of the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page go to the end, and click on:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of stations. Click on: “Adelaide”.

The chart shows no warming of air from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 was ca. 280 pmmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 1999 it had increased to 368 ppmv (0.72 g/cu. m. of air). but there was no increase in air temperature in this port city. Instead there was slight cooling. Use the back arrow to redisplay the list of stations, then check out the charts for all the stations. These show no warming up to 2002. Use the back arrow again to display the “World Map”. Next go to:
“North America” and check out all the charts.

John Daly found over 200 weather stations located around the world that showed no warning up to 2002. All this empirical data falsify the claims by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2c causes global warming and is the control knob of climate change.

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 432 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere
0.85 g of CO2, an 18% increase since 1999. There reason there is such a low amount of CO2 in there air is that most of it is absorbed by the oceans.

The bottom line is that we can use the abundant supplies of oil, nat. gas and coal for electrical power generation, and we don’t have to worry about emission of CO2.

NB: If you click on the image, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the image and return to Comments.

jd-tasmania
2hotel9
Reply to  Jim Simpson
June 20, 2026 4:04 am

Final solution? For what? There is nothing wrong with the climate, or weather. All humans have to do is ramp up use of renewable energy sources; gas, oil, coal, hydro and nuclear. Period. Full stop. THAT is the only conversation that matters.

Reply to  Jim Simpson
June 20, 2026 7:19 am

CO2 has an emissivity of zero so can’t do what you think at atmospheric pressure or temperature.

IMG_0102
Phillip Chalmers
June 18, 2026 11:53 pm

Human ingenuity can cope with human foibles as well as with the challenges of reality.
The mistakes have been made, enormous amounts of the tax money of first world citizens have been lavished on technologies which aim to harness wind power and directly collect sunlight and convert them to electrical power.
The products have been installed in already established grids and are disturbing the stability of them quite unnecessarily.
This can remain as a first world product line for a large number of nations, countries and islands which for one reason or another cannot safely build and run and protect nuclear power plants.
Let enterprise in the first world build and use as many coal and nuclear power stations as are necessary to sustain their local economies and use some of that power to electrify the third world using these newly developed technologies, second rate as they are at present.
We can then trash most of the appalling windmills at the end of their working lives and limit the areas used for solar panels to urban areas like private property rooftops and large public buildings like churches and town halls and public car parks and sports arenas.
The free market needs to be allowed to find the balance purged of all the bias introduced to mitigate the imaginary climate crisis.

Sommer
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
June 19, 2026 4:53 am

“The mistakes have been made, enormous amounts of the tax money of first world citizens have been lavished on technologies which aim to harness wind power and directly collect sunlight and convert them to electrical power.
The products have been installed in already established grids and are disturbing the stability of them quite unnecessarily”
In the case of large industrial wind projects in Ontario, where there have been serious siting issues and there are 20 year contracts that have another 10 years until completion, how can anyone turn a blind eye to the harm? Why is this not an ethical dilemma?

https://www.windconcerns.com/dr-pereira-why-wind-turbines-cause-harm/

Sommer
Reply to  Sommer
June 19, 2026 4:55 am
michael fellion
Reply to  Sommer
June 19, 2026 8:24 am

Wind turbines cause harm when built using tax money.

David Wojick
June 19, 2026 2:55 am

Things are going well without a “national conversation” (whatever that means). Lots of gas fired power is being built. Shutting down coal fired has largely stopped. Wind is on hold and solar slowing nicely.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2026 3:15 am

In a “national conversation”, the far-left unite to yell down anything remotely resembling common sense.

June 19, 2026 4:12 am

“That reality is forcing a more nuanced conversation in Washington.”

We don’t need more “nuance” as in the feigned sophistication of high-sounding words. We need more hard-nosed analysis and decision.

“During the summit, Members of Congress emphasized the importance of expanding all forms of energy…”

Oh, “Members of Congress” weighed in? There’s your problem. A program of “all of the above” expansion is absurd. How about setting a design basis with specified requirements, and selecting the best system configuration and menu of sources for overall capacity, reliability, and cost? Stop proliferating those “forms of energy” that raise the overall cost and degrade the overall reliability of the system.

Thank you for listening.

Reply to  David Dibbell
June 19, 2026 4:57 am

Bingo!

Reply to  David Dibbell
June 19, 2026 5:16 am

Amen!

oeman50
Reply to  David Dibbell
June 19, 2026 5:44 am

Good one.

Nuanced = spin.

We don’t need no stinkin’ nuances.

June 19, 2026 4:55 am

“Members of Congress emphasized the importance of expanding all forms of energy”

But that’s a cop-out. They’re fearful of alienating anyone, like wind and solar developers and the media which might say they’ve sold out to the oil companies.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 19, 2026 6:18 am

That phrase sucks up to subsidy miners in wind and solar.

June 19, 2026 5:15 am

What a wimpy article! The author delicately dances around the issues, trying not to offend anyone. I am fed up with hearing the “all of the above” argument. Get government out of the way, and the energy sector will have a stable space for making investments and long-term growth. Despite what the attending congressmen might have said (probably trying to protect their wind and biofuel boondoggles and their failing state climate change policies), a stable trend toward deregulation and simplified, expedited permitting would set the conditions for development. The best national policy would be to remove climate change from the discussion.

Her characterization of the meetings comes across as Marxist style “stakeholder management,” where a facilitator has a room full of people talking past one another without first establishing a set of agreed-upon facts — with predictably nebulous results and nobody happy.

MarkW
Reply to  pflashgordon
June 19, 2026 6:42 am

As long as congress isn’t banning, subsidizing or taxing any of the options, then all of the above is always on the table.
Just let the individuals make their own decisions based on the facts and economics. That’s all we need from government, to just get the h#ll out of the way.

June 19, 2026 5:20 am

From the article: “During the summit, Members of Congress emphasized the importance of expanding all forms of energy,”

Windmills and industrial Solar should be banned. Both of these are impediments to a healthy electrical grid.

Congresscritters who support windmills and Industrial Solar should also be banned.

MarkW
June 19, 2026 6:35 am

The solution is simple. Resume building fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro power plants. The choice of which will depend on opinions regarding the relative prices of the three, projected into the future.

NotChickenLittle
June 19, 2026 7:11 am

You can’t have a thoughtful conversation with people who don’t think but only emote.

Kevin Kilty
June 19, 2026 8:35 am

During the summit, Members of Congress emphasized the importance of expanding all forms of energy, while White House officials highlighted the Administration’s push to strengthen domestic manufacturing and lower energy prices. Meanwhile, industry leaders stressed the need for permitting reform and greater business certainty to help expedite energy projects,…

This sounds remotely encouraging. The solution to the energy crisis of 1965 or so through 1980 was finally addressed by a policy of relying on many sources of energy, and it brought coal back from the dead. People recognized that the nation had abundant coal reserves.

But keep in mind that the resources were developed according to how they could best meet a specific energy need. Thus, we cut back on using petroleum liquids for electrical energy generation, and built coal plants instead. No one in their right mind would have used coal for transportation while using petroleum for electrical generation.

Unfortunately, the ideas expressed in this essay sound vaguely like “all of the above”. What that has done is elevate renewables into a prominent place in the discussion. Renewables result in taxpayer subsidies, overbuilding infrastructure, and weakening permitting so that projects are scrutinized poorly. It turns permitting into a rubber stamp. All of this is the dreamscape of the renewable energy folks and their trade associations.

2hotel9
June 20, 2026 4:07 am

The only conversation humans need to be having is about increasing use of gas,oil,coal,hydro and nuclear. Everything else is a load of destructive bullshyte.