Top Democratic lawmakers and strategists are road-testing an energy slogan that has for years been mostly absent from the left’s vocabulary — “all of the above.”
But they’ll have to overcome environmental advocates and other Democrats hostile to that phrase and all it entails. They are pushing instead for a quick move away from all fossil fuels to address global warming.
Despite such hurdles, many Democrats see an opening to embrace all energy sources in the face of attacks from Hill Republicans and the Trump administration on wind and solar.
“We have an energy crisis, electricity prices for homeowners and businesses have gone up over 20 percent in New Jersey,” Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), said in an interview. “The only answer is all of the above.”
Party leaders have urged Democrats to pin rising energy costs on President Donald Trump and Republicans, citing the phaseout of Inflation Reduction Act tax incentives that were bolstering renewable energy projects around the country.
Republicans are betting on the administration’s work to expand drilling, mining and nuclear, and prevent coal plants from shutting down.
But for Democrats, reviving “all of the above” dovetails with their focus on abundance and affordability. Their pitch: They’ll lower costs, no matter the energy source.
“To meet American energy needs, we need an all-of-the-above energy approach. Wind, solar, geothermal, you name it,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) in a post on the social media site X. “Yet, Congressional Republicans voted to shut clean energy projects down, which is already skyrocketing energy bills for working families.”
And, Pallone adds, “We’re not looking to cut off fossil fuels, but we have to emphasize renewables. The problem is that Trump just wants everything to be fossil fuels.”
The center-left group Third Way has been pushing the slogan as well, arguing natural gas is part of the “pragmatic policies Americans want” as Democrats work toward decarbonization.
The shift from Democrats could also lay the groundwork for nascent permitting overhaul talks. Any deal would need to balance Republican goals of increased fossil fuel infrastructure with Democratic dreams of transmission build-out.
For their part, Republicans were all about “all of the above” following Trump’s election last year, and some still utter the magic words, like Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) at a recent hearing.
But the administration has broken with that framing, emphasizing that “energy dominance” can only be achieved with “baseload,” at-the-ready power sources like fossil fuels and nuclear, while throttling solar and wind projects via executive actions.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright stunned some lawmakers at a June hearing when he said he has “never been for ‘all of the above.'”
And earlier this month, a Department of Energy official told lawmakers the administration was focused on the “best of the above,” putting an official stamp on its hostility to renewables. Republicans in Congress are already falling in line with a narrower definition.
“We have an energy deficit and it’s only going to grow further,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.). “I’m not opposed to intermittent renewables, but baseloads have to have the highest priority.”
‘Rethink our energy policy’
The big question for Democrats, who spent Joe Biden’s presidency de-emphasizing fossil fuels in favor of renewables, is how many will be on board for such a revival, which carries with it the implicit endorsement of oil, gas and coal.
During last year’s vice presidential debate with JD Vance, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz unleashed the phrase in touting the Biden administration’s energy record, earning a clap back from the League of Conservation Voters.
“We don’t like that expression,” Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for government affairs, said at the time.
The concept first appeared in BP marketing materials in 2006 and gained traction under President Barack Obama, who promoted diversifying energy sources without eliminating oil, natural gas or coal.
Obama and many Democrats, however, increasingly moved away from coal as environmental groups adopted a “keep it in the ground” mantra to fossil fuels.
“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,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.). “That’s not the way we should go.”
Trump’s DOE moved twice to extend the life of a coal plant in Michigan and has announced a suite of initiatives to bolster new coal generation.
And while Democrats mostly agree coal is a bridge too far, it’s unclear how many will back increased natural gas production. They used to call it a bridge fuel on the road to cleaner sources.
According to an analysis by the Rocky Mountain Institute, utilities are currently looking to build twice as much natural gas capacity as they were 18 months earlier.
“I think there’s some different opinions within the caucus” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “I don’t know that there is a single Democratic position on natural gas.”
Many Democrats argue that they’ve never really been that antagonistic against natural gas or oil. Under the Biden administration, oil and natural gas output reached record highs — surpassing 13.5 million barrels of crude per day and more than 103 billion cubic feet of gas.
Still, Biden moved to limit oil and gas leases — particularly offshore — and placed a pause on new liquefied natural gas export terminals.
“Natural gas is the next nuclear energy, to where people 15 years ago absolutely hated it and now everybody seems to be on board,” said Texas Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey. “It’s going to be a part of us being able to do things around AI, to be able to handle that load on the grid.”
Some Democrats are quietly exploring bipartisan solutions. Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) have introduced a bill authorizing $200 million annually to modernize and repair municipally owned natural gas distribution systems.
Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said, “I am unenthusiastic about putting billions of dollars into new gas pipelines that will force us in that direction for decades.”
Still, Warren, the top Democrat on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, allowed, “But that doesn’t mean there aren’t places that we could stop and rethink our energy policy. We need to get costs down and the Trump administration’s approach is a disaster.”
Permitting talks
When asked if Democrats should embrace an “all of the above” strategy, Sara Chieffo, vice president of government affairs at LCV, said the party should be focused on promoting renewables.
“The question we should be asking is, ‘Why are President Trump and congressional Republicans pushing fossil fuels above all else, when clean energy is widely supported and the most affordable and fastest to deploy?'” Chieffo said.
Indeed, the four states where wind and solar produce the greatest share of electricity — Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas and New Mexico — are among the 20 cheapest states for electricity, according to federal data.
An upcoming litmus test for whether Democrats want to go down an “all of the above” approach could be bipartisan permitting overhaul.
For years, lawmakers have been looking for the right mix of concessions to secure a permitting deal for energy projects stuck in bureaucratic processes both sides claim to want.
Already, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) released a bipartisan permitting framework in September with Republicans for “all of the above sources.” That includes provisions for natural gas pipelines and transmission lines.
That framework of a “technology neutral” approach could show industry players that Democrats are a steady hand on energy policy, unlike what’s going on with the Trump administration currently, said strategist Frank Maisano at the law firm Bracewell.
“I think the Trump actions only create more reason and impetus for Democrats to want to jump in and help create a structure that can prevent this type of back and forth,” Maisano said.
But House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said, “I think that’s folly. If anything, this is a moment to reaffirm the clean energy path forward, it’s much more compelling than this high cost, high pollution chaos agenda.”
