The election is nearly upon us. What’s ahead for federal energy policy?

In the final minutes of last week’s presidential debate, we finally got a question about climate change. The answers highlighted a clear distinction between the candidates, but told us very little about policy.

Vice President Harris praised the economic benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act and record-setting oil and gas production in the same sentence. Former President Trump didn’t acknowledge the question, but said earlier in the night that “we aren’t ready” for a clean energy transition and that we need to build “normal energy plants.”

We know that energy priorities under a Harris and Trump presidency would likely look radically different. So what are some possible scenarios for federal policy over the next four years?

This summer, the Political Climate team traveled to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. With microphones in hand, we criss-crossed Milwaukee and Chicago on foot, and set up recording studios in hotel rooms, company boardrooms, and on the sidelines of splashy parties. 

Our goal: to learn more about climate leaders’ priorities, concerns, and their approach to the 2024 election.

Our series of four dispatches feature candid perspectives of 20 climate insiders. The episodes cover a wide range of topics: the obstacles facing permitting reform, the friction between Republican clean energy proponents and the larger GOP, the future of the IRA, and the bipartisan resurgence of interest in nuclear power. 

Read (and listen) on as we recap some of the most illuminating takes from a summer of convention hopping.

Clean energy Republicans’ complicated relationship with the GOP

Republicans pushing for clean energy policies have good reason to believe their influence is growing. For one, the House Conservative Climate Caucus has doubled in size since it launched three years ago; it now boasts over 80 members. 

This year also marked the first-ever RNC featuring a clean energy event. A coalition of organizations put together a well-attended gathering at the stunning Mitchell Domes. And in August, former President Trump offered a full-throated endorsement of nuclear (while also, granted, proclaiming that wind power generation “destroys everything around it”).

Yet several clean energy leaders we interviewed at the RNC flagged friction with the GOP status quo. Utah Representative John Curtis, who founded the Conservative Climate Caucus and is currently running to replace Mitt Romney in the US Senate, told Political Climate co-host Emily Domenech that he speaks with climate skeptics in his party “almost daily.” 

“We have people who literally come to all my Conservative Climate meetings, but won't join the Caucus because they know back home that will get them in trouble, but they want to know more,” Curtis said.

Heather Reams, the President of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES), a conservative-leaning advocacy organization, also described a complicated dynamic. “As a lifelong Republican, I recognize that the message that I carry isn't what most Republicans carry, and it is a new message. I've had friends tell me, ‘Wait, I thought you were a Republican. You believe the climate is changing?’ Since when does [caring about] the environment mean you're less of a Republican?” she remarked.

Our RNC interviewees rarely brought up their Presidential nominee. A rare exception: Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa — the new Chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus — implored Trump, if elected, to appoint North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum to run the EPA. “[Burgum] knows the energy industry inside and out, and I think he would be a friend to us in the Conservative Climate Caucus,” she said. 

Dems offer mixed assessments of the Manchin-Barrasso permitting bill

Shortly after the RNC wrapped up, in July, Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a permitting reform bill to expedite both clean energy and fossil fuel projects. 

At a cleantech event held in Chicago during the DNC, we sat down with three Congressional Democrats — Reps. Sean Casten (IL) and Mike Levin (CA), and Senator Ed Markey (MA) — in a swanky boardroom overlooking downtown Chicago. They offered widely different takes on the bill, and its fossil fuel provisions, in particular.

Rep. Casten was the most amenable to Manchin-Barrasso. “The fossil fuel provisions in that package are unnecessary. They're not hugely harmful. They could be a lot worse,” he explained. “Whatever the next permitting package is, we won't get another bite of that apple for a decade. And so, if we get into a lame duck session where [this bill] is likely to pass, then I think it's better than the status quo,” he added.

Levin praised the bill’s transmission reform provisions, but said he wouldn’t vote for it. “I don't think permitting reform necessarily means what Joe Manchin and Barrasso think permitting reform means. I don't think it's an excuse for more fossil,” he told co-host Brandon Hurlbut.

Markey criticized the bill more explicitly: “The one concern that we have to have is whether or not it's…creating a fast track for more oil and gas development in our country. It's very questionable as to what that proposal will ultimately accomplish,” he said.

Don’t assume the MAGA faithful are climate deniers

I had several conversations in Milwaukee with passionate Trump supporters who view climate change through a more sober lens than their political hero. One evening I spoke to an affable convention volunteer I’ll call Ricky, a proud dad with a big MAGA tattoo on his shoulder. 

At a sidewalk tiki bar, Ricky expressed his admiration for Vladmir Putin and reflected fondly on the events of January 6, 2021. When I asked him what he thought about the climate crisis, he told me that it clearly “wasn’t a hoax,” but also “not as extreme as the Democrats think.” He said the situation would worsen, but “not in my lifetime.”

Another afternoon, a young Milwaukean told me gleefully that “It’s time for a change,” in reference to a second Trump term, and yelled with gusto at a group of anti-Trump protestors on the sidewalk. When the conversation turned to climate, however, he grew subdued, and spoke mournfully about the absence of birds in his neighborhood, and the eeriness of Lake Michigan’s rising temperatures. 

Harris avoids talking climate, and gets a shrug in response

During the DNC, Harris was called out for her sparse climate talk on the campaign trail. 

But Rep. Casten, a clean energy industry veteran himself, argued that the IRA offers sufficient proof of her commitment.

“If you're looking at the choices right now and saying, ‘Boy, I sure wish I knew more about your critical minerals policy,’ that's not the stakes,” Casten told me with a laugh. “The truth is, this is a handoff from a White House that passed the biggest, most significant climate bill in our country's history.”

Republicans give nuclear lots of love, while Markey remains a rare Dem holdout

Nuclear energy came up in nearly all of our RNC interviews. “If you aren't pro-nuclear, you're not serious about the issue,” argued Chris Barnard, President of the youth-centric American Conservation Coalition. “The data is very clear that you need clean baseload power like nuclear energy to help tackle these problems when it comes to climate change.”

“Anybody who cares about carbon [emissions] better be serious about small-scale nuclear,” added Rep. Kelly Armstrong, of North Dakota, who is running for governor this November.

Senator Ed Markey remains one of only a few members of Congress opposed to nuclear generation. In July, he and Senator Bernie Sanders were the only two ‘No’ votes in the Senate against the ADVANCE Act, which aims to streamline new nuclear projects. 

“We cannot have a catastrophic nuclear explosion. We cannot have uranium and plutonium that doesn't have the highest possible safeguards built around it. And I think that was the real downside to the ADVANCE Act, and that's why I led the charge to defeat it,” Markey told me.

Dissecting the IRA with a scalpel instead of a grenade

Many in the clean energy industry are asking: if Republicans pull off a sweep in November, what will happen to the IRA? 

Although former President Trump recently vowed to “rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act,” and although the IRA received exactly zero votes from Congressional Republicans, the GOP leaders we interviewed insisted they want to keep parts of the bill intact, instead of advocating for a full repeal.

“The way it went through reconciliation, the way it [cost] $1.5 trillion, the way that no Republicans were involved, your tendency is to say, ‘Throw the whole thing out,’” Rep. Curtis said. “But I like to point to nuclear, carbon sequestration, direct air capture; a lot of Republican priorities…those are the ones that are easy for Republicans to relate to, that are part of our energy policy as well.”

“The 45Q [tax credit] and direct pay are essential,” added Rep. Armstrong.

“There's things around critical minerals, battery storage and nuclear that I think Republicans can get behind,” said Chris Barnard, of ACC. “I think part of the problem is around the sunsetting of tax credits that would kind of extend ad infinitum and be extremely expensive for mature technologies. We don't support those kinds of subsidies, but we do support helping nascent American-made technologies that we need to be dominating the world on,” he added, invoking the threat posed by China’s clean energy ascent.

As further evidence of this piecemeal approach, in August, 18 House Republicans wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson, requesting that Republicans preserve clean energy tax credits in the IRA. 

Of course, this plan, like so many others, hinges on the outcome of November’s elections. Rest assured, Political Climate will be there to speak to the climate leaders of both parties to make sense of what happens next.