At the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference unfolding in Houston, Texas, recently appointing US Energy Secretary Chris Wright made a bold statement:
“The Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.”
At a time when global actors are scrambling for viable renewable energy alternatives, Wright’s words as Secretary of Energy appear, at first glance, to be a step in the wrong direction.
However, his remarks suggest deeper factors at play…
A Flawed Premise?
The assertion that the Biden administration irrationally pushed renewable energy adoption without due consideration of complexities is not fully supported by data. While electricity costs in the US did rise by 23% under Biden, this was a foreseeable trade-off.
Biden’s renewable energy agenda mandated the electrification of cooking, heating, and transportation through stringent regulations. His administration also expanded the share of weather-dependent wind and solar power while restricting new natural gas infrastructure.
Existing coal and gas plants were forced to retire under EPA rules, replaced by heavily subsidised wind and solar units requiring costly battery storage. Additionally, the administration championed expensive offshore wind projects across the Gulf, Pacific, and Atlantic coastlines—which are more than twice as costly as natural gas combined-cycle plants and over three times pricier than onshore wind.
A more valid critique of Biden’s energy policies lies in regulations affecting coal and gas plants. The proposed “power plant rule” mandated costly, unproven carbon capture technologies for new fossil fuel plants, contributing to price hikes. Unsurprisingly, these costs trickled down to consumers—a reality compounded by the post-pandemic economic landscape, which dented Biden’s standing in the polls.
Given this context, Wright’s rhetoric at CERAWeek was unmistakably political. Yet, his words were not without substance, as the new Trump administration is already rolling back key Biden-era initiatives. Almost concurrently with CERAWeek, Wright approved a fresh LNG extraction project on the US Gulf Coast.
A Drive to Cheapen Energy at Any Cost?
An Executive Order signed on 20 January 2025, the day President Donald Trump took office, stated:
“It is thus in the national interest to unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources. This will restore American prosperity —- including for those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years. It will also rebuild our Nation’s economic and military security, which will deliver peace through strength.”
This was one of several directives undoing Biden’s policies: withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, lifting restrictions on LNG terminal approvals, easing oil and gas regulations, authorising new power infrastructure, ending offshore wind leases, and lifting drilling prohibitions in Alaska.
Notably, despite their stark differences in approach, both administrations presided over record-high US crude oil production. While Biden struggled with inflation, which remains a concern under Trump, his government maintained oil output at unprecedented levels.
At CERAWeek, energy executives urged the US government to ensure more predictable energy policies—something the Biden administration had arguably provided. They also called on Wright to solidify the new government’s energy stance through legislation.
Wright closed his CERAWeek address by asserting, “It’s in the best interests of the American people and the citizens of the world to have lower oil prices.” The message is clear: the administration prioritises affordability above all. But the long-term cost of such a strategy remains to be seen.
A Pivotal Moment in Energy Policy
CERAWeek’s opening remarks underscored its role as a crucial forum for shaping global energy strategies. The path to the next energy transition will be long and fraught with uncertainty, with stakeholders wavering in their commitment.
Not everyone is willing to bear the costs of energy transformation, highlighting the importance of getting it right. What constitutes ‘right’ will vary by country, yet its global implications are undeniable. One thing is certain: if higher electricity costs can topple a government, their consequences could reach far beyond the ballot box.