The Future of American Energy: Gridlock, Growth, and a Race Against Time By Connor Stout (Denison University) and Gabriel Philipp (Siena College)

Connor Stout, left and Gabriel Philipp, right.

At the 2025 Politico Energy Summit on June 10th, leading lawmakers, CEOs, policy advocates, and former regulators gathered to dissect the energy future of the United States. Beneath the technical language and party lines, a powerful theme emerged; namely that the U.S. is heading into a period of intensifying energy demand, regulatory turbulence, and geopolitical competition. While consensus formed around some core issues, deep divisions remain over how to meet the moment.

The Upcoming Energy Crisis:

The unofficial theme of the summit was that the U.S. needs more energy in the upcoming decade. Nearly every speaker touched on the idea that the current energy infrastructure will not be capable of supporting the growth of artificial intelligence, data centers, and onshoring of manufacturing. AI, in particular, dominated the conversation. Industry leaders stressed that without a rapid expansion in power generation the U.S. could lose its technological and economic edge to competitors like China. There was widespread acknowledgment that data infrastructure and AI will require massive, always-on power supplies, and that the grid, as currently built, is ill-equipped to handle the coming surge. 

Short-Term and Long-Term Power:

Attempting to solve the problem of the energy crisis requires investment in power infrastructure; no speaker denied that. The issue that consistently arose was which power sources are worthy of investment. While nuclear was largely agreed upon to be reliable, environmentally friendly, and affordable once created, it was also agreed upon that this was a long-term solution which needed short-term bridges to reach. Some of the proposed renewables like wind and solar were praised for their low cost and quick deployment, but concerns about intermittency and reliability limited unanimous support. Natural gas emerged as a pragmatic bridge, supported for its existing infrastructure and reliability, though others warned it risked delaying the clean energy transition. Battery storage and grid modernization were mentioned as essential companions to any generation strategy, especially as AI and data centers drive unprecedented demand. Ultimately, the question wasn't whether to invest but how to balance speed, sustainability, and reliability without locking the U.S. into outdated systems.

One proposed solution to this issue was the “all of the above” approach. Championed by several speakers, it advocates not for any single energy source, or even a few, but all of them. With the amount of energy necessary for the future, the approach argues that funding all possible sources of energy will help us make it through the short-term uncertainty into the long-term nuclear future. With that funding will come infrastructure that can be used to supplement nuclear power as necessary; the perfect compromise as the country can examine and choose which energy sources it wants to continue to invest in once the crisis has passed.

One Big Beautiful Blemish:

Much of the political friction centered on the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), the latest House-led reconciliation effort aimed at reshaping federal energy policy. The bill was sharply criticized by industry leaders and some lawmakers for its rigidity, particularly around how and when tax credits are awarded and lost. Several panelists warned that unless provisions are updated to reflect construction timelines and supply chain realities, the bill could have the opposite of its intended effect. With no changes, we believe the bill will only succeed in discouraging investment in clean energy projects. Others viewed the bill as an overly centralized, one-size-fits-all approach to a system that needs flexibility and regional nuance.

Takeaways: 

There are two key takeaways from the expo presentations. First, the “all of the above” approach is clearly the favored solution to the current and future energy crisis. Nearly everyone at the conference emphasized it, and it was reassuring to see bipartisan support from both Republican and Democratic senators, especially given the political tension we've grown up with.

The second takeaway is about the long-term impact of the “all of the above” energy plan. While combining fossil fuels with renewables might make the transition to clean energy smoother, we’re concerned about the environmental damage caused in the meantime. If the short-term reliance on coal, oil, and natural gas worsens the climate crisis, is the plan worth it in the end?