On the first days of October 2025, the nation’s energy future found itself at the heart of a high-stakes tug-of-war, with California and Washington, D.C. pulling in starkly different directions. The Trump administration, doubling down on its campaign promises, unveiled a sweeping set of initiatives to revive coal power and slashed federal support for California’s ambitious hydrogen energy projects. The resulting fallout has exposed deep divisions not only between Republicans and Democrats, but also within the GOP itself, as lawmakers and industry leaders grapple with the country’s shifting energy priorities.
On October 2, the Trump administration announced a $625 million boost for the nation’s coal fleet, along with new public land sales aimed at expanding coal production. According to Politico, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum described these moves as essential to keeping coal plants online in the short term and fostering a robust domestic coal industry “for decades.” The administration’s actions were quickly followed by the passage of H.R. 3015 in the House, enshrining a National Coal Council at the Department of Energy. Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a long-time coal advocate, was quick to praise the measures. “I think coal is always going to be a factor on the power side, and coal is really essential to steel building in America,” Capito said. “I think this helps the coal industry have a nice spot here for decades to come.”
Yet, not every Republican was on board with the coal-centric approach. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cautioned, “It’s not as easy as it sounds, just putting money into a sector that’s seen the shuttering of coal plants for a host of different reasons.” She emphasized her support for coal generation but warned that the industry’s long-term struggles cannot be fixed by federal funding or executive action alone. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) echoed this skepticism, noting, “If it’s just purely an administration position, then the long-term [capital expenditure] that may be necessary to have clean coal is probably not going to be there. It could take two, three years to actually get investment up to any level of significance for our generation assets.”
Some House Republicans, including Reps. Nicole Malliotakis and Nick LaLota of New York, broke ranks and voted against the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act. Their reason? The administration’s continued throttling of wind and solar projects. LaLota explained, “While I support clean coal, my vote was a reflection of my preference for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, including not pulling the plug on offshore wind projects that are already 70 percent complete.” Both Malliotakis and LaLota pointed to the Trump administration’s decision to halt the Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island as a prime example of misplaced priorities. The dissenters insisted that a technology-neutral, all-of-the-above approach—not a fossil-fuel-first agenda—should guide U.S. energy policy.
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), founder of the Conservative Climate Caucus, suggested that the best way forward was for Congress to pass a bipartisan permitting reform package. “When we as legislators don’t legislate, then the executive branch does what they want to do, and that could be good or bad depending upon your perspective,” Curtis remarked. He argued that a lasting congressional agreement would offer more stability to the coal industry and other energy sources, sparing them from the whiplash of shifting White House policies. Whether Democrats would join such an effort remained uncertain. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) made his position clear: “I think there’s a lot of us that have been advocating [for all of the above], but we certainly don’t want to add more coal power plants to the grid. That’s not the way we should go.”
While coal was getting a federal shot in the arm, California’s flagship hydrogen energy project suffered a major blow. On October 1, the Department of Energy canceled its funding for the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES), a $1.2 billion public-private partnership based in Irvine. The grant represented about 10 percent of the project’s overall funding, but its loss marked a significant setback for California’s hydrogen ambitions. Chris Hannan, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, didn’t mince words: “We’re just extremely disappointed.”
Despite the setback, industry leaders vowed to press on. Katrina Fritz, president and CEO of the California Hydrogen Business Council, told Politico, “The plan is that we continue to support those projects, and work with the state to support those projects so that we can realize the private investment.” The hydrogen sector had been bracing for bad news since the DOE began hinting at possible funding cuts back in March. Matt Miyasato, a FirstElement Fuel executive, said his company would continue sourcing hydrogen from existing suppliers, even if it meant higher costs. “We’ll just continue to do that,” he said. “But it makes it more expensive.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the funding cut with a forceful rebuke. “Clean hydrogen deserves to be part of California’s energy future—creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and saving billions in health costs,” Newsom declared. “We’ll continue to pursue an all-of-the above clean energy strategy that powers our future and cleans the air, no matter what DC tries to dictate.” Fritz, for her part, saw Newsom’s statement as a clear sign that the state would step up with additional support for hydrogen, possibly through the reauthorized cap-and-invest program and a $1 billion discretionary fund now fiercely contested in Sacramento.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) indicated that the story might not be over yet. Raising the possibility of legal challenges, Padilla referenced prior Trump administration losses in court over funding clawbacks. “I’m not giving up that quickly. I think there’s questions as to the validity or the legality of how they’re trying to claw back not just ARCHES funding, but funding broadly,” he told Politico.
The energy drama played out against a backdrop of rapid policy shifts in California. In early October, Newsom signed a bipartisan bill allowing gas stations to sell gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol (E15), making California the last state to lift its 10 percent cap. The move, intended to help consumers facing some of the nation’s highest gas prices, was welcomed by the ethanol industry. Newsom also signed a bill exempting renewable energy companies’ federal subsidies from state taxes, a move designed to maximize incentives before the Trump administration’s rollback of federal spending on renewables takes full effect. Meanwhile, he approved a long-term water supply planning bill but vetoed measures related to water agency funding for PFAS removal, disaster declaration categories, and demand-side electricity savings, citing concerns about costs, redundancy, or regulatory conflict.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: America’s energy landscape is more polarized—and more uncertain—than ever. While Washington pushes coal and pares back support for emerging clean technologies, California and its allies vow to chart their own course. The result? A patchwork of policies, a chorus of competing voices, and an energy future that remains, for now, very much up for grabs.
