Nancy Churchill says real energy beats green experiments
Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric
When the Department of Energy announced the termination of 223 so-called “clean energy” projects, I cheered. For years, Washington, D.C., has shoveled billions of taxpayer dollars into “green” schemes that promised transformation but delivered little. Finally, someone pulled the plug.
The DOE explained why: these projects “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayers’ dollars.” At the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump put it even plainer: “This climate change is the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world in my opinion.”
For taxpayers, this is a long-overdue reset. But here in Washington’s 5th Congressional District, the loss of federal dollars might sting.
The end of energy handouts
In total, the DOE canceled more than $7.5 billion in awards nationwide, including $1.1 billion tied to projects in Washington state. The target list reads like a greatest-hits reel of climate-industrial wishcasting: hydrogen hubs, solar subsidies, “zero-emission” trucking pilots. These were never about affordable, reliable power. They were about using federal dollars to prop up political ideology.
The DOE’s action wasn’t sabotage. It was accountability — an admission that many of these projects could not stand on their own merits and did not deliver returns for the people who paid for them.
Washington’s share of the cuts
Governor Bob Ferguson quickly condemned the decision, calling it an attack on Washington’s economy. He highlighted the $1 billion Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub, arguing it would create more than 10,000 jobs and lower emissions — but those jobs were projections, contingent on continued federal subsidies.
Across the state, the numbers added up fast. Nearly half of the cuts were tied to the hydrogen hub, but other industries were also caught in the sweep. In Cowlitz County, Nippon Dynawave lost more than $46 million aimed at industrial greenhouse-gas reductions. Skagit County companies, including PACCAR and SilFab Solar, saw over $70 million in grants vanish. Smaller ventures like CleanFiber in Lewis County and Spokane Edo in Spokane County lost millions as well. Even Washington State University in Whitman County saw four research projects totaling almost $10 million canceled.
All told, Washington lost $1.1 billion in promised grants. For Eastern Washington, the most direct hit came with the loss of projects in Spokane and at WSU. The disruption will be real. But it raises an unavoidable question: if these ventures were truly essential to the state’s energy future, why couldn’t they stand without taxpayer dollars holding them up?
Balancing pain and promise
Democrats in Congress framed the move as political targeting of “blue states” and warned of higher energy prices. But Washington didn’t lose functioning energy systems — it lost speculative projects designed to run on perpetual subsidy. Families won’t lose their lights or heat because these grants disappeared. What we will lose is the illusion that subsidy-backed experiments were ever going to deliver affordable power at scale.
Hydropower: Power, irrigation, and food security
If Washington is serious about energy resilience, we cannot ignore the backbone of our grid: hydropower. The Lower Snake River Dams alone generate about 1,000 average megawatts of electricity, helping meet peak loads and stabilize transmission.
These dams are more than power plants — they are lifelines. Reservoir water supports irrigation for orchards, vegetables, and grains while powering the pumps that keep farms productive. In short, they are food security as well as energy security.
Modernization is already underway. At Ice Harbor Dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has installed new, fish-friendly turbines that boost efficiency by 3–4 percent and reduce maintenance needs — evidence that targeted upgrades can extend the life and value of existing hydro assets.
If Washington state wants reliable power and secure agriculture for the next fifty years, sustained investment in maintenance and modernization of our dams must be a top priority.
Nuclear: Real baseload power for the future
Alongside hydropower, nuclear power is Washington’s most promising path forward. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear delivers baseload electricity regardless of weather or time of day. Unlike federal grant projects, it can stand on its own.
The momentum is already here. In May 2025, the Bonneville Power Administration approved Energy Northwest’s plan to expand nuclear capacity, moving the project into implementation. This builds on existing infrastructure and signals that utilities view nuclear as the Northwest’s energy backbone.
Meanwhile, Amazon has partnered with Energy Northwest to develop advanced nuclear — specifically small modular reactors — near the Columbia Generating Station in Richland. The plan begins with four Xe-100 units producing 320 megawatts, with the potential to grow toward nearly one gigawatt. Unlike speculative hydrogen hubs, this project is backed by private capital and a guaranteed off-taker. That makes it real, not theoretical.
Why nuclear? Because it provides what “green” energy never can: dependable baseload power that doesn’t vanish when the sun sets or the wind stops blowing; the ability to draw on private investment that lowers risk for taxpayers; decades of steady operating life rather than short-term pilot projects that fizzle out; and seamless integration into the existing grid, strengthening stability where it is needed most.
For Eastern Washington, this pivot means construction jobs, permanent operational roles, and long-term energy security. Pairing nuclear power with modernized hydropower isn’t just smart policy — it’s a blueprint for a self-sufficient, durable future.
Energy with staying power
Yes, Washington lost $1.1 billion in promised federal grants. But those “losses” are gains for taxpayers nationwide. We are no longer forced to bankroll projects the DOE itself judged economically unprofitable. Instead of clinging to the fantasy of a taxpayer-subsidized hydrogen utopia, Washington can lean into nuclear and hydropower — energy sources with staying power.
The real question is this: Do we want our state’s future tied to federal green experiments — or to reliable infrastructure that delivers real jobs, real energy, and real independence? And beyond that, who should carry the risk of untested energy schemes — taxpayers who never signed up for the gamble, or private companies willing to prove their ideas in the marketplace?
Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington state, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack, X, and Rumble
Also read:
- Opinion: Majority party policies still making life more expensive for Washingtonians
Rep. John Ley outlines his opposition to new taxes, raises concerns about state spending, and details legislation he plans to pursue during the 2026 Washington legislative session. - Opinion: What happens when you build a state budget on the most volatile tax sources?
Ryan Frost argues that relying on volatile tax sources like income and capital gains taxes risks destabilizing Washington’s budget and undermining long-term fiscal planning. - Letter: Has $450 million been wasted on a bridge that’s too low for the Coast Guard with a foundation too costly to build?
A Seattle engineer questions whether hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a bridge design he argues is unnecessarily risky and costly compared to an immersed tunnel alternative. - Opinion: Fix Washington – House Republicans lead the charge against liberal chaos
Nancy Churchill argues that one-party Democratic control has driven up costs, weakened public safety, and harmed schools, and says House Republicans are offering a path forward through their Fix Washington agenda. - Opinion: Biden agreed with Trump on Maduro, so why aren’t liberals celebrating?
Lars Larson questions why American Democrats are reacting with outrage to the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro despite prior bipartisan agreement on prosecuting him.
