The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a cornerstone of American clean energy innovation for over five decades, is undergoing a transformation that has sparked concern, debate, and no small measure of confusion among scientists, policymakers, and the public. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that the research institute in Golden, Colorado, will shed the word "renewable" from its name, becoming the National Laboratory of the Rockies. The move, according to officials, reflects President Donald Trump's broader vision for the nation's energy research priorities—a vision that has increasingly tilted away from renewables and toward fossil fuels since Trump began his second term in January 2025.
The announcement did not specify whether the name change would immediately affect the laboratory's work, but the symbolism was hard to miss. The Department of Energy stated that the renaming "reflects the Department’s renewed focus on ‘energy addition,’ rather than the prioritization of specific energy resources." As reported by Inside Climate News, laboratory director Jud Virden described the new name as embracing "a broader applied energy mission entrusted to us by the Department of Energy to deliver a more affordable and secure energy future for all." Yet, Virden stopped short of outlining what this broader mission would entail for the lab’s staff of roughly 4,000 or its celebrated research programs.
Since its founding as the Solar Energy Research Institute in 1974—born out of the oil shocks and energy crises of the era—the facility has played a pivotal role in advancing technologies that now underpin much of the world’s solar and wind power. Its researchers have earned hundreds of patents, from advanced wind turbines designed for harsh climates to super-thin solar films and catalytic converters that have helped make renewable energy more affordable and efficient. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush’s administration elevated the institute to national laboratory status, renaming it the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and cementing its legacy as a global leader in clean energy research.
But the winds of political change have long buffeted the lab. According to Grist, the Trump administration has not only rebranded the lab but also proposed slashing its budget by a staggering 70 percent for the 2026 fiscal year—a move that, if approved by Congress, would compound previous funding cuts. Already, the lab has laid off 114 employees in 2025 due to "new federal directions and budgetary shifts," as reported by E&E News. The Department of Energy did not respond to requests for further comment on whether additional layoffs or program changes are imminent.
Despite these upheavals, wind and solar energy remain listed as research priorities on the lab's website as of mid-December 2025. A spokesperson told reporters there are "no planned shifts at this time," but many in the scientific community are unconvinced. The renaming fits a broader pattern under the Trump administration, which has sought to align the identity of federal institutions with its political priorities. This trend includes the symbolic renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, Denali to Mount McKinley, and even the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Yet, as Grist notes, the National Laboratory of the Rockies is the first scientific organization to undergo such rebranding.
The change has drawn sharp criticism from energy experts and former officials. Barry Rabe, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies climate policy, called the move "part of an effort to marginalize any future role for renewable energy in the United States." He characterized the renaming as "largely symbolic, but yet linked to a larger set of shifts and changes in the Energy Department space." Rabe also raised concerns that states and municipalities might reconsider their partnerships with the lab, potentially undermining collaborative efforts to advance clean energy technologies.
Steve Clemmer, director of energy research at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was more blunt. He described the rebranding as a "huge mistake that will increase energy costs, stifle innovation and economic growth, and make the grid less reliable." Clemmer emphasized, "At a time when the rest of the world is transitioning to clean energy to address the climate crisis, NREL’s focus on renewable energy is vitally important for maintaining U.S. leadership."
Former Colorado governor Bill Ritter, who has long championed the lab’s work, echoed these worries. In an interview with Inside Climate News, he recalled a visit to Israel where the head of that country’s renewable energy lab told him, "I have nothing to tell you, because you come from the place that has the best renewable energy laboratory in the world." Ritter warned that any move to divert the lab from its traditional mission "is harmful to the United States’ ability to remain a major player in the energy economy of the near future." He added, "We’ll no longer be competitive in renewables research with China or India or other countries that are still heading toward the renewable energy transition at a very fast pace."
Others with close ties to the lab were not surprised by the change, given the administration’s broader goals. Matt Henry, a Montana-based social scientist who worked at the lab until August 2025, commented on social media, "In the early days of DOGE people there were whispering about a name change to avoid the ire of MAGAs. It pissed me off—prioritizing the preservation of the institution at the expense of its [stated] mission? So disappointing." Henry’s reference to DOGE—Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—underscored the administration’s push to cut federal spending, especially on programs perceived as out of step with its priorities.
For many, the stakes go beyond symbolism. Dustin Mulvaney, an environmental studies professor at San Jose State University, described the lab’s public research as a vital resource for businesses and universities that might otherwise be unable to afford private sector expertise. "If the name change is a sign of a significant change in the lab’s work, it would be like losing several major land grant research universities all at once," Mulvaney said. The lab’s consulting work has helped communities across the country benefit from new energy technologies and navigate the complex transition away from fossil fuels—a mission that now appears increasingly at odds with federal policy.
Audrey Robertson, assistant secretary of energy, defended the administration’s approach, stating, "We are no longer picking and choosing energy sources. Our highest priority is to invest in the scientific capabilities that will restore American manufacturing, drive down costs, and help this country meet its soaring energy demand." Still, many see the renaming and proposed budget cuts as a retreat from the very research that has powered decades of American innovation and global leadership in renewables.
The fate of the National Laboratory of the Rockies—and the future direction of U.S. energy research—now rests with Congress, which must decide whether to approve the administration’s deep budget cuts. For the scientists and communities that have long depended on the lab’s expertise, the coming months will be critical in determining whether the United States continues to lead, or begins to lag, in the global race toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy future.
