WASHINGTON — As the federal government reimagines American energy policy this year, support for projects hinges on a new metric — density.

The concept of density in energy production echoes throughout recent regulatory changes and funding rescissions across the Trump administration, leading to a demonstrably increased federal preference for fossil fuels and nuclear power over renewable generation sources such as wind and solar.

Broadly speaking, relying on density metrics prioritizes greater energy outputs for less investment of money and land. Density is a driving force in the administration’s energy decisions right now, a senior official in the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy said last week. The official spoke on background for the purposes of engaging in a more candid discussion of the administration’s energy policies.

“This government, like any government, has a limited amount of capital, and what we are committed to is ensuring that we get for the American taxpayer maximal return on our investment,” the DOE official said. “And what that often means is not just investing in a resource that gives us as much energy as possible — as that resource can generate — but also ensuring that that resource gives us as much energy as possible for every dollar of government investment.”

The official pointed to four measures — energy density, capacity density, capacity factor and cost — as keys to the administration’s strategy.

Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a system by volume or mass. Capacity density looks at how much energy a source offers relative to the amount of space it takes up — meaning sources that can offer stronger output with a smaller spatial footprint are preferred. Capacity factor considers actual energy output from a source over a given time period, compared to that same source’s maximum capacity — a metric that may cause intermittency to be viewed as a disadvantage.

The official said these measures complement a commitment from President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright “to ensuring efficient use of taxpayer funds,” adding, “From that perspective, when we also think about how much we are investing in many of these plants and resources to deploy these energy sources across the United States, it certainly does matter. It matters quite a lot.”

However, some congressional Republicans from districts with a lot of renewable energy projects — considered less desirable by some of the administration’s preferred metrics — have taken umbrage with some recent policy shifts, preferring more of what they call an “all-of-the-above” approach.

Rethinking U.S. energy priorities

The desire to use density and capacity metrics to determine how the government can get more energy for less money and effort has transformed the energy priorities of the U.S. presidency since January.

Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. government allocated billions of dollars to build out wind and solar capacity while placing harsh restrictions on coal and natural gas. They emphasized concerns about climate change and hopes that a cleaner energy mix would slow U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to support their energy strategy.

Now, the Trump administration has gutted many Biden-era grants and regulations, saying instead it will favor energy projects with greater energy and capacity density.

“If you look at fuel sources through the lens of capacity density and energy density and capacity factor, by default, some sources will be more attractive than others,” the senior DOE official said.

In just the last month, the Trump administration has taken a series of actions against wind and solar projects, as well as others favoring coal, oil and nuclear power.

Abrupt rescissions of funding and approvals from the Departments of the Interior and Transportation have stymied wind projects off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Michigan and California.

Solar projects also have been targets for funding cuts. The Agriculture Department announced it would stop subsidies for solar installations on the nation’s farmland. And the administration’s termination of the Biden-era “Solar for All” program pulled back $7 billion in grant funds for solar projects across the country.

At the same time, the Interior Department has approved multiple coal mine expansions and rolled out an expanded offshore oil leasing schedule. And the White House has set new and ambitious goals to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear power, which the DOE is supporting with regulations and resources.

“It does appear that they’re stacking the deck against certain technologies,” said Doug Vine, director of energy analysis at the nonpartisan think tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

Nick Loris, executive vice president of policy at the Conservative Coalition for Climate (C3) Solutions, agreed, saying the administration’s actions indicate an escalating “resource bias war” between Democrats and Republicans.

“There was always a bit of resource biases between Democrats and Republicans in that typically Republicans are favoring fossil fuels and nuclear, and the Democrats are favoring renewables,” he said.

Even though Republicans have recently championed an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, Loris said there’s been a noticeable shift.

“That’s certainly changed a bit, I would say, in the past several months with just the more political attacking of wind, primarily, but also solar to some extent and battery technologies and EVs to some extent,” he said. “So a little bit of a regression from the ‘all-of-the-above’ language to more specific attacks on specific technologies and industries.”

But the “all-of-the-above” strategy always had some ambiguity, Loris said, as there hasn’t always been clarity about whether the slogan meant the nation should subsidize projects so that all forms of energy flourish or if politicians should leave things up to market factors without providing subsidies or regulations.

Sticking to ‘all of the above’

On Capitol Hill, some Republicans who espouse an “all-of-the-above” approach have taken issue with some of the administration’s recent moves.

After news broke in late August that the administration would withdraw approval for a wind project off the coasts of Delaware and Maryland, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., called on the White House to reconsider.

“As a supporter of an ‘all of the above’ approach for energy, which will lead to energy dominance for America, I find it odd that Pres. Trump would kill this 1,000 job project,” Bacon said in a post on X. “Our country needs a balanced mix of clean & reliable energy so we don’t have to rely on energy imports from Russia, Venezuela, & others. This project was 80 percent complete, with an investment of $1.3B already in the ground. I urge the Admin to reconsider this move.”

And ahead of the August recess, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, put a hold on three Treasury Department nominations as a form of protest while he awaited the department’s guidance on new tax credits for wind and solar projects. The guidance, which has since been released, cut one of the two ways projects could previously qualify for the credits.

But the administration argues its moves don’t demonstrate “misalignment” with its party’s energy priorities.

“When we think about ‘all of the above,’ what we are saying fundamentally is that we are not going to prioritize a very specific energy source for reasons, frankly, that have nothing to do with improving the affordability, the reliability and the secure access to that source,” the senior DOE official said. “So I do not see a misalignment, as far as that’s concerned.”

Democrats focus on wind and solar

So far, references to density as justification for rescinding approvals and funding for wind and solar projects are not landing on the political left.

“It’s everything they can concoct to kill off clean energy and open up millions of acres of public land to fossil fuel development,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said. “None of this is a surprise.”

Congressional Democrats have shown increasing frustration over the cancellation of wind and solar projects, most of which have aimed at projects in blue states.

In a business meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week, ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., lamented the recent cancellations of projects off the coast of his home state, where he noted offshore wind is an “enormous industry.”

“About a little over a week ago, when a thousand trades workers were putting their gear together to go out and do their well-paid work on this facility, which is already 80% complete — out of the clear blue sky with no notice or warning, came a stop work order bringing the entire project to a halt,” Whitehouse said. “There’s been no plausible explanation of why, other than the individual predilections of a president who doesn’t like windmills.”

Energy demand on the rise

Demand for electricity is increasing across the U.S. for the first time in about 20 years, according to the Energy Information Administration. That upward trend often is attributed to increasing needs from AI data centers and industry.

With energy needs on the upswing, the Trump administration is making the case that by considering density and capacity, the government will get more for its money. Walking back some of the previous administration’s investments in favor of other sources is part of that effort.

“The administration’s commitment is to not prioritize very specific energy sources that, frankly, don’t necessarily deliver on their commitment,” the DOE official said, adding that capacity factor was a great example for offering generation comparisons.

The official said studies show “in general, the average capacity factor for a solar or wind farm is somewhere between 20 to 32%. That is remarkably low.”

“The average capacity factor for a nuclear plant is 92.5 or higher percent,” the official added. “If you are the government, and you are trying to ensure that energy is affordable, reliable and secure, which source would you pick?”

There are complications related to every energy source though, said Vine of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. For instance, he said, although nuclear power may offer greater density and capacity, it takes much longer to build out than wind and solar. And though wind and solar have greater capacity challenges, pairing solar with batteries or spreading wind farms over more land can help address those, he said.

“The electric power system has been referred to as one of the most complex systems that we’ve ever devised,” Vine said. “Each technology brings something.”

As debate continues over what the ideal energy mix to address the nation’s rising demand should be, C3 Solutions’ Loris said there’s a “very legitimate tension” among some Republicans about the administration’s pushback on wind and solar — including some sentiments that the agencies are “erecting barriers” that unnecessarily harm clean energy projects.

Whether Congress chooses to take that up this fall remains to be seen, Loris said. “If they are going to fight that fight, it’s going to be through a legislative process that really tries to fix permitting reform for all energy sources and technologies.”

“I think that’s the best hope in which you can kind of defang the agencies’ ability to block projects or put up additional regulatory barriers, if you fix some of those abilities to do so through the legislative process,” he said.

_____

(David Jordan contributed to this report.)

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.