A Tale of Three Energy Sectors

Protectionism, the war on renewables and increased demand from AI.

Abstract: Conventional wisdom says that the Trump administration is good for fossil fuels and bad for renewable energy with one exception, nuclear power, which has received enthusiastic support as a source of reliable electricity for AI data centers and energy security. While the Trump administration frames its energy agenda as a deregulatory, pro-growth paradigm compared to the Biden administration’s climate-focused mandates, its targeted “war on renewables” introduces a glaring economic paradox. By suppressing fast-to-deploy wind and solar resources, the framework inadvertently creates a growth-choking energy bottleneck for power-hungry domestic industries like AI. The market does not perfectly correlate with political whims. A single protected solar manufacturer reached an all-time high, a major offshore wind developer lost half its valuation, and the nation’s largest nuclear operator experienced a spectacular boom followed by a sharp reality check.

The administration’s framework relies heavily on economic nationalism and deregulation, creating vastly different outcomes across energy sectors:

Wind energy -- especially offshore wind -- has faced severe administrative friction. The government has slowed down ocean lease sales, tied up projects in intense multi-agency environmental reviews, and strictly enforced maritime shipping laws that limit foreign installation vessels. For onshore wind, strict new spacing rules on federal land have further squeezed developer profits.

While designed to shield domestic manufacturing, the administration’s aggressive tariffs on foreign solar panels inadvertently dimmed the prospects of the broader domestic solar market. One domestic manufacturer, First Solar, has done well.

Nuclear power enjoys strong administrative backing and has benefited from the federal crackdown on renewable energy but expecting it to entirely dominate the AI boom is unrealistic due to severe structural constraints. Even with government efforts to speed up approvals, the sector is bottlenecked by limited access to specialized uranium fuel from foreign adversaries like Russia, multi-year certification timelines for new reactor designs, and a massive four-year grid interconnection backlog caused by a global shortage of utility transformers.

The divergent impacts of these policies are vividly reflected in how the sector leaders have performed in the stock market over the last 30 months:

Constellation rode an unprecedented wave of nuclear hype throughout 2024, culminating in an all-time high of over $400 in October 2025 as investors placed massive bets on data center power agreements (such as the Three Mile Island restart). However, by early 2026, the hype cycle cooled as long-term engineering realities set in dragging the stock down to its current level of $254.83. Constellation did not completely crash because it owns the largest fleet of already existing, functional nuclear plants in the country, their current power generation remains a highly profitable cash cow.

First Solar with its domestic manufacturing capacity did well because of the administration’s trade wars. First Solar gained unprecedented pricing power, hitting an all-time high of $318.25 before settling at $279.01 in June 2026. The administration’s aggressive trade barriers severely hurt downstream solar installation and deployment firms such as Sunrun, Sunnova, and utility-scale developers like NextEra Energy. These companies saw their project economics completely upended as they were crushed by the soaring cost of imported components and restricted supply chains, proving that protectionism for one player creates severe collateral damage for the broader clean energy rollout.

Ørsted reveals the crushing weight of hostile federal policy paired with high interest rates. Following federal leasing freezes and mounting regulatory burdens, its valuation completely unraveled. Shortages of specialized installation vessels and soaring capital costs forced the company to write off massive losses, dragging the stock down to $8.17 by June 2026—less than half its 2024 value.

Onshore wind, however, has done better because of regulatory assistance in Texas. The Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT have consistently supported wind integration and expanded transmission lines to meet soaring grid demands, allowing major independent developers and operators like NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy, and Clearway Energy Group to thrive. Backed by this state-level infrastructure support, major regional installations—such as the massive 1,027-megawatt Great Prairie Wind Farm completed in late 2024—have continued to scale and successfully lock in corporate power agreements with tech hyperscalers.

Conclusion and Investment Outlook

The primary takeaway from the 2024–2026 energy cycle is that federal policy can heavily influence short-term market valuations, but physical realities dictate long-term operational outcomes.

This “War on Renewables” reveals a critical structural pitfall when paired with the modern AI boom. Attempting to suppress wind and solar while expecting nuclear to entirely shoulder the massive, exponential surge in data center electricity demand is a mathematical mismatch. Because next-generation nuclear facilities face severe regulatory, fuel supply, and grid interconnection delays, freezing out fast-to-deploy renewable energy threatens to stall technological infrastructure growth. To avoid widespread grid shortages, the administration’s framework will ultimately require a pragmatic transition toward an “All-of-the-Above” energy policy that leverages every available domestic resource.

A rigid ideological binary that picks fossil fuels and nuclear while sidelining renewables is simply incompatible with an exponential, AI-driven surge in electricity demand. Nuclear cannot scale fast enough on its own; a true “All-of-the-Above” energy strategy—utilizing domestic solar, onshore wind, and storage alongside nuclear baseload—is a national economic necessity.

Furthermore, this strategy exposes a deeper geopolitical vulnerability. While a domestic “drill, baby, drill” policy aims for oil independence, global energy security remains inexorably tied to volatile global markets and maritime vulnerabilities. Sidelining domestic clean energy infrastructure does not insulate the economy from global oil dependence; rather, it increases macro exposure to foreign supply shocks, running entirely counter to the administration’s stated goals of absolute economic nationalism and energy security.

For investors, the “Nuclear Hype” has officially shifted from a get-rich-quick tech play into a slow, long-horizon engineering reality. Capital should avoid unproven startup developers trapped waiting for fuel or grid connections, and instead prioritize established companies with existing, functional power assets already generating revenue. In the renewable space, overall deployment will likely remain sluggish; therefore, look for heavily protected domestic manufacturers rather than the developers tasked with building the actual projects.

Authors Note: A previous fairly popular energy post compared Biden and Trump on LNG and wind.