Holding the line on climate: DOE
This post is Part 2 in a series recapping some of the Trump administration and Congress’s interactions on climate, what CCL has done in response, and what we plan to do in the future. Catch up on the series introduction and Part 1 about funding at staffing cuts at NOAA.
In May, Politico reported that “the president’s fiscal 2026 proposal would ax billions from clean energy and climate programs” at the Department of Energy (DOE). These DOE programs are currently funded by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which passed Congress and became law in 2021.
One example is the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which the White House proposed slashing by roughly $2.5 billion. “EERE is currently funded at $3.46 billion, meaning the program would be cut by over 70 percent if Trump’s budget plan is adopted,” Politico reported.
The administration also proposed cuts to nuclear energy, carbon capture efforts, DOE’s Office of Science, and other areas with significant bipartisan support.
It’s normal for a presidential administration to propose a budget, and Congress will have the ultimate say over what to actually fund and at what levels. What’s notable here — and unusual — is just how huge the White House’s proposed cuts are to climate and clean energy.
Supporting bipartisan pushback for energy appropriations
As the DOE faced these budget pressures around clean energy funding, CCL’s Government Affairs team recognized yet another new threat — and saw a new opportunity. Because so many of these energy programs have bipartisan support (and, indeed, were originally funded by a bipartisan law), it seemed likely that a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers could push back.
Sure enough, after CCL’s Government Affairs staff had conversations with many offices on Capitol Hill about funding concerns, we learned that the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus was interested in speaking up on this.
The caucus penned a letter to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which is a subcommittee in the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations. The letter began, “As you prepare to draft the FY26 House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, we write, as members of the House bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, to request robust funding for programs focused on energy innovation, resilience, and security at the Department of Energy (DOE).”
The letter goes on to name the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and many others, as programs that “help ensure the long-term security and prosperity of the U.S. energy economy” as they “lower energy costs, increase manufacturing jobs, and ensure that U.S. manufacturers can thrive in global markets.” The letter wraps up, “Accordingly, we request robust funding and sufficient staffing levels for these programs.”
Because of CCL’s long relationship with the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, the caucus co-chairs approached CCL’s Government Affairs staff with a request to help circulate the letter. CCL liaisons to caucus members sprang into action, reaching out to their offices to encourage them to sign on to the letter.
The letter was ultimately signed by 22 members of the bipartisan caucus and delivered on May 1 to the subcommittee. We’re proud of the role our liaisons played in generating more signatories for this letter, which speaks to the value of these important energy programs and encourages Congress to continue funding them.
As with the NOAA mobilization covered in Part 1, we used our voice and our grassroots power to help ensure that Congress retains its power over funding of these critical programs, instead of ceding that power to the executive branch. We leaned on our long-standing relationships with the Climate Solutions Caucus, and from our nonpartisan stance, we were able to bolster an important bipartisan effort on behalf of climate and clean energy programs.
Catch up on the introduction and Part 1 of this blog series, or keep reading:
