This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors’ experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University’s usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice.
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece...
After more than three years of intense fighting following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the path to end the war has been challenging. President Trump has...
We are the premier hub and policy institution for global energy thought leadership. Energy impacts every element of our lives, and our trusted fact-based research informs the decisions that affect all of us.
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece may be subject to further revision. Contributions to SIPA for the benefit of CGEP are general use gifts, which gives the Center discretion in how it allocates these funds. Rare cases of sponsored projects are clearly indicated.
For a full list of financial supporters of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, please visit our website at Our Partners. See below a list of members that are currently in CGEP’s Visionary Circle. This list is updated periodically.
President Donald Trump’s second term has begun with sweeping changes, just as the candidate promised: tariffs instituted against allies and adversaries alike, budgets and programs cut, and entire agencies shuttered.
This disruption has included energy and development policies. President Trump has stressed the need for “energy dominance,” or sometimes “energy abundance.” On his first day in office, he declared an energy emergency intended to streamline development of domestic energy resources, and he has abandoned the Biden administration’s focus on climate change. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have both stressed that energy abundance is essential to economic growth and opportunity. Wright has repeatedly asserted that it is not just a goal for the United States, but a foundation for development around the globe,[1] and that the United States can partner with developing countries seeking to build out their energy systems.
If the current US administration does indeed wish to work with other countries to promote their energy abundance, how will it achieve that goal? This post highlights the foundational elements of effective US energy engagement that the Trump administration would need to get right to foster successful partnerships with emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs[2]).
Energy Drives Economic Development
Energy development around the globe is about more than access to basic services such as illumination and phone charging; energy enables rising living standards. Modern energy systems, and particularly electricity, power broader economic development—including mills and agricultural processing plants, rural medical facilities, and machinery that drives local industries. While countries have very different energy consumption profiles, there are no wealthy countries that are low-energy countries. An additional challenge is that energy development does not occur in a vacuum. Vital systems like healthcare, food, and education enable growth in the energy sector as part of countries’ broader socio-economic development.
Energy decision makers in EMDEs thus need to chart a course: do they emphasize using conventional systems and fossil fuels (often domestically produced) or low-emission technologies? Outside parties, including the Biden administration, have in the past pushed for zero-carbon systems, but this pressure deserves careful consideration. Although it is true that many EMDEs are among the most vulnerable to climate change, and that their emissions are growing fast, they have contributed only a small share of global GHG emissions—and even less on a per capita basis.
Moreover, many in EMDEs resent being pressured to bear the cost of decarbonization to fix a problem they did not create. EMDE governments will typically make their decisions based on what they deem to be the most pragmatic solution that addresses their development needs, which may include low- or zero-emission technologies if they are feasible in financial and socio-economic terms. External partners risk undermining trust if they fail to recognize and respond to this reality—and to provide more feasible pathways toward climate goals.
Past US Government Engagement on Energy Development
The United States has long recognized the role energy plays in development. In fact, it has been one of the largest providers of bilateral assistance in the energy sector, with efforts across South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. US engagement, including technical assistance, regulatory partnerships, and policy dialogue, has delivered real and tangible benefits. Before it was abolished in recent weeks, the flagship initiative Power Africa brought new or improved electricity access to over 216 million people and facilitated $29 billion in power investments, involving significant amounts of private capital.
These engagements have also received their share of criticism. As is true for any taxpayer-funded program, they have reflected US interests—some rooted in humanitarian considerations, and others focused on promoting stability, fostering American soft power, and pursuing other strategic and economic goals. In some instances, US priorities were perceived to outweigh the recipient’s most urgent needs. In addition, development experts have long expressed concerns that US and other aid programs foster dependency rather than local capacity. All of these challenges have been further compounded by the fragmented delivery of US energy assistance —multiple agencies with overlapping mandates, poor coordination, and rigid planning cycles.
Features for Future US Energy Development Engagements
With the Trump administration dismantling much of the US foreign assistance architecture, and given the possibility that at some point in the future some US administration may seek to restructure its aid apparatus, this moment calls for a closer look at the key features necessary for effective engagement with EMDE partners. Detailed discussion of the institutions, reforms, and programs is important, but can wait until a later stage.
Understanding each partner country’s priorities. Invariably, different partner countries will be seeking to address different problems, whether lack of energy in remote regions, inadequacy of energy supply in major urban areas, or poor air quality. The partner’s main energy goals may include affordability, reliability, replicability, facilitating wider economic development, reaching climate targets, or a combination thereof. If the United States does not give heavy deference to the partner country’s main goals, its efforts may not deliver a lasting impact.
Proving targeted, country-specific institutional and technical support. Many EMDEs lack the requisite institutions, regulators, and operators for effective energy development. US engagement could help fill these gaps. In fact, without such assistance, the effort to help a given country develop its energy system may come to naught. The key is to tap American expertise in the short run and build long-term local capacity by promoting the development of national institutions—an approach some aid agencies have already adopted.
Facilitating capital flows. While most of the capital needed to scale energy systems will come from private and non-US sources, it will not flow at scale without confidence in the broader investment environment and the ability to earn predictable returns. Even where institutional and technical capacity is strong, financial market constraints often persist—such as currency volatility, the absence of risk-sharing instruments, and underdeveloped local capital markets. These conditions can significantly raise the cost of capital and render otherwise-viable projects unbankable. Without targeted public funding (from the US or elsewhere) to mitigate these risks and drive private investment, energy development in EMDEs will prove elusive.
Striking a careful balance when promoting American exports. US taxpayers understandably support the export of American goods and services, but when assistance prioritizes exports over solving a partner country’s most pressing energy challenges, no one benefits. In practice, US aid often does support US exports, as implementers are naturally familiar with American technologies and service providers. Still, the most effective way to advance US interests is by helping partner countries meet their energy goals—creating the conditions for commercial opportunities to emerge organically.
If energy is the sector that enables economic growth and opportunity, and the administration is indeed committed to engaging partner countries, then refashioning American assistance on these foundations can help ensure EMDE energy systems become more resilient, responsive to real-world needs, and capable of delivering sustained impact while maximizing private investment. This development can serve the needs and interests of both the partner countries and the American taxpayer.
Foundations and Individual Donors Anonymous Anonymous Aphorism Foundation the bedari collective Children’s Investment Fund Foundation David Leuschen Mike and Soa Segal Kimberly and Scott Sheffield Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust Ray Rothrock
[1] For example, see Secretary Wright’s remarks here, here, and here.
[2] For the purposes of this post, China is not included in this category.
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece...
President Donald Trump has made energy a clear focus for his second term in the White House. Having campaigned on an “America First” platform that highlighted domestic fossil-fuel growth, the reversal of climate policies and clean energy incentives advanced by the Biden administration, and substantial tariffs on key US trading partners, he declared an “energy emergency” on his first day in office.
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece...
This Energy Explained post represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece...
