Dive Brief:
- Aspects of the Trump administration’s energy policy — such as the rollback of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, the introduction of new tariffs and offshore wind lease buybacks — could cause the U.S to lose between 390 GW and 540 GW of new wind, solar and energy storage capacity over the next decade, according to projections from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
- “Crucially, these lost projects are not actually replaced with other sources of new power,” the NRDC said in a Wednesday report. “At most, only 9 GW of additional gas capacity is added with Trump’s policies in place.”
- The report cited near-term supply chain bottlenecks for gas turbines, volatile fuel prices, “and the general cost-competitiveness of new renewables relative to gas” as reasons for the NRDC’s low estimate for new additional gas investment.
Dive Insight:
An August report from Global Energy Monitor counts 189 GW of gas-fired capacity currently in the announced, pre-construction, and construction phases in the U.S., a number which “nearly doubled” in the first half of the year, “but uncertainty persists about how and when this capacity gets built.”
“Two-thirds of gas-fired capacity in development globally, and more than half of projects tied to data centers, do not have a named turbine/engine manufacturer,” Global Energy Monitor said. “Nearly one-quarter of projects earmarked for data centers do not have a named start year. Turbine supply constraints, financing uncertainty, local data center moratoriums, and mounting public opposition leave the true scale of the gas power buildout uncertain.”
Amanda Levin, NRDC’s director of policy analysis, said during a Tuesday press call that the group’s modeling still anticipates “significant growth in renewables under this administration. But we don't go nearly as far, and we lose more than half of everything that we expected to be able to build with the combination of market forces and proactive policy.”
Both Levin and the Global Energy Monitor report noted that due to order backlogs for gas turbines for combined-cycle plants, developers who need to bring firm power online quickly are turning to alternatives like simple-cycle or reciprocating engine plants, which “are less efficient than combined-cycle plants and carry higher emissions per unit of electricity generated,” Global Energy Monitor said.
Levin said this trend supports the NRDC’s position that the Environmental Protection Agency’s gas power plant emissions rule should not be repealed, though the Trump administration has announced its intention to do so.
The trend “highlights actually the value of these types of standards … which is that the market is not acting in a perfectly rational economic way,” she said. “These types of regulations could prevent this type of highly polluting type of power generation by requiring us to think about how we are building out this gas that we're trying to build over the next few years to meet this growing load.”
The NRDC’s report also forecast an increase in power costs due to a need to “rely more heavily on the existing, higher-cost legacy fossil fuel system” in absence of new renewables generation. The power sector will spend $5 billion to $15 billion more on fossil fuels, the NRDC said, while claiming $45 billion less in IRA tax incentives, relative to the group’s January 2025 Snapshot case.
“By 2035, average household electricity rates are projected to increase by an additional 4.2% to 5.5% nationwide, relative to the January 2025 Snapshot case,” the NRDC’s report said.
Facts Only
* Rollback of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, introduction of new tariffs, and offshore wind lease buybacks could cause the U.S. to lose 390 GW to 540 GW of new wind, solar, and energy storage capacity over the next decade, according to projections from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
* The lost projects are not replaced by other sources of new power; at most, only 9 GW of additional gas capacity is added with Trump’s policies in place.
* The NRDC cited near-term supply chain bottlenecks for gas turbines, volatile fuel prices, and the cost-competitiveness of new renewables relative to gas as reasons for a low estimate on new additional gas investment.
* 189 GW of gas-fired capacity is currently in the announced, pre-construction, and construction phases in the U.S.
* This 189 GW figure nearly doubled in the first half of the year.
* Two-thirds of global gas-fired capacity in development and more than half of data center projects lack named turbine/engine manufacturers.
* Nearly one-quarter of data center projects do not have a named start year.
* Developers are turning to simple-cycle or reciprocating engine plants due to order backlogs for combined-cycle plants, as these alternatives are less efficient and carry higher emissions per unit of electricity generated.
* The NRDC forecasts an increase in average household electricity rates of 4.2% to 5.5% nationwide by 2035 relative to the January 2025 Snapshot case due to reliance on the legacy fossil fuel system.
Executive Summary
Projections suggest that specific policies under the Trump administration, such as rolling back Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, introducing new tariffs, and implementing offshore wind lease buybacks, could result in the U.S. losing between 390 GW and 540 GW of new wind, solar, and energy storage capacity over the next decade, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC noted that these lost projects are not replaced by other power sources, as only about 9 GW of additional gas capacity is added under these policies. This low estimate for gas investment is attributed to supply chain bottlenecks for gas turbines, volatile fuel prices, and the cost-competitiveness of new renewables relative to gas.
Further context shows that 189 GW of gas-fired capacity is currently in development or construction phases in the U.S., though uncertainty remains regarding the timeline for completion. Supply chain constraints and financing uncertainties affect the scale of gas power buildout, with some projects lacking named turbine manufacturers. Furthermore, developers facing backlogs are shifting to less efficient power generation methods, such as simple-cycle plants, due to order backlogs for combined-cycle plants. Experts suggest that regulatory standards, like the EPA's emissions rule, may be important because they influence market behavior, preventing a shift toward highly polluting generation methods and costing the energy sector significant amounts in fossil fuels.
Full Take
The narrative reveals a tension between stated policy goals and market realities concerning energy transition and infrastructure development. A significant pattern emerges where policy shifts, intended to accelerate renewable deployment, are simultaneously projected to cause substantial quantifiable losses in clean energy capacity, suggesting that regulatory action and economic forces interact to create unintended constraints on buildout. The fact that lost renewable capacity is not simply substituted by other sources indicates a fundamental gap in the current energy planning framework where market incentives alone do not dictate infrastructure reality.
The concern regarding gas plant development highlights a systemic issue: supply chain fragility and cost structures influence investment decisions more strongly than theoretical long-term targets. When developers face constraints, they migrate to less optimal, higher-emitting technologies, which the NRDC argues suggests that existing regulatory standards—like emissions rules—serve a necessary function in modulating this transition when market forces are not perfectly rational. The implication is that building an energy future requires structures that preemptively manage supply chain risks and maintain environmental safeguards, rather than relying solely on market competition to drive desired outcomes.
What assumptions underlie the projection of lost capacity versus added gas? Does the focus on measurable GW loss obscure the deeper implications of technological lock-in and the cost of transition for the end-user? Furthermore, if the regulatory framework is necessary to prevent a regression to high-emission power generation, what is the political calculus when those regulations are challenged? What mechanisms exist outside of market price signals to force rational decision-making in large-scale energy infrastructure investment?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a synthesis of real, sourced energy policy projections, characterized by complex interplay between different reports and expert commentary.