Why Clean Energy Will Survive Regardless of Political Shocks

By Dr. Michael Shank and Ed Potosnak

Americans have been feeling the pinch in recent months. There’s a reason the cost of eggs is a dinner table conversation — and frankly, the cost of everything else, including our power bills.

There’s a selfish economic reason motivating many Americans when they talk about expanding clean energy, like solar. And it’s pretty simple. Clean energy proponents want to save money, and they want to be able to budget and bank on those financial savings — meaning, they want that clean energy to be predictable in the marketplace. Thankfully, that’s possible now in 2025.

Dirtier energy that requires burning, like oil, coal and gas, offer none of those assurances, either in the cost-savings category or in the price predictability category. With global oil and gas prices surging due to political, economic and environmental shocks like wartime sanctions and climate fueled extreme weather snaps, for example, the prices remain unpredictable and unprofitable for the American public. And that translates into a higher bill for you, the consumer.

Clean energy, in contrast, is now cheaper than dirty energy, and since it’s not involved in global wars and conflicts with oil and gas exporting or importing nations, it provides more insulation from the market fluctuations that come with sanctions, supply shortages, shocks, disruptions and more.

On cost-savings, for example, solar power was already coming in at prices 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative, and that was years ago. Similarly, electric vehicles for years have been cheaper to operate than fossil fueled cars. Heat pumps are also saving Americans hundreds of dollars every year by switching off inefficient oil, propane heating systems. And battery prices keep dropping and are at their lowest ever and the trend is on track to continue.

On predictability, that’s also a win. Americans can have their solar power and battery storage — to support their electric heating, cooling and transportation — and be insulated from those market shocks, political instability or violent conflicts.

That’s what is possible now. So yes, clean energy proponents are selfishly wanting that. Why? Because clean energy provides families and businesses with more money in their pockets and more predictability in their financial planning.

Now, does federal and state policy have a role to play going forward in helping more Americans join this clean energy bonanza? Sure, especially because the federal government is currently subsidizing dirty energy instead, to the tune of $757 billion in taxpayer funds every year. And that’s dirty energy, mind you, responsible for 200,000 American deaths from air pollution each year. Loss of lives, another cost too great to bear.

If the Department of Government Efficiency really wants to save Americans money, cutting wasteful government subsidies to dirty energy markets while ensuring a freer and fairer market for clean energy is a good place to start. And Americans who want to save money and have more predictable pocketbook planning should demand it. Once Washington gets out of the dirty energy subsidizing business, then clean energy will become an even more obvious go-to for fiscally conservative Americans, irrespective of political affiliations.

Given that clean energy already wins the cost-competitiveness argument, imagine the additional savings for Americans if DOGE pulls the plug on the $757 billion in taxpayer bailouts and subsidies for dirty energy every year. The majority of Americans would support this, as nearly 9 out of 10 want the federal government to be in the business of supporting solar and energy storage instead, which will make these clean energy choices even more savings-rich and predictable for Americans.

The energy answer is clear — and clean — if you care about saving money, putting more money in your pocket and doing it in a predictable way. More clean energy — that’s what Americans want and what we should give them.

Michael Shank is adjunct faculty at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and a visiting scholar at George Mason University’s Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution. Ed Potosnak is executive director of the New Jersey LCV and a member of the Franklin Township Municipal Council, Somerset County. This article first ran in the Richmond Times Dispatch.