A Review of Energy Manufacturing-Related Legislation Introduced by the 119th Congress

Public discourse on congressional industrial policy is often framed primarily around large-scale legislative packages, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. However, beyond these high-profile omnibus packages, Congress frequently introduces smaller, more targeted legislation aimed at advancing specific aspects of manufacturing. These bills, while less visible, often address critical gaps, test new policy mechanisms, and lay the groundwork for broader reforms.

Manufacturing is a particularly salient issue for Congress because it is directly tied to economic opportunities, job creation, reducing foreign dependence, strengthening supply chains, and protecting domestic competitiveness. In the past decade, the popularity of industrial policies has grown by more than 700 percent globally, led by advanced economies. Domestic subsidies and export incentives have led the way in this growth and continue to be popular policies both domestically and abroad. As global demand for clean energy technologies grows, the ability to manufacture key components domestically has become central to both economic strategy and national security.

By focusing on the introduced manufacturing-related legislation during the 119th Congress (since January 3, 2025), the directional shifts taking place in energy manufacturing policy can be observed. To evaluate these trends, the authors identified legislation relevant to clean energy manufacturing by reviewing bills introduced in both the House and Senate. This approach assesses not only the volume of activity but also the types of mechanisms Congress is proposing to advance clean energy manufacturing and strengthen domestic competitiveness.

This analysis is not intended to be exhaustive and excludes enabling conditions or supportive legislation, such as measures related to oil and gas drilling and other energy production, general workforce development, or infrastructure investments that indirectly shape manufacturing capacity. It also may not capture the full breadth of the clean energy value chain, from raw material extraction to deployment and recycling. Instead, the focus is on bills that directly target or relate to clean energy manufacturing. While not comprehensive, this approach is intended to identify directional trends in congressional priorities, highlighting policy gaps, and illustrating how smaller, targeted bills complement larger legislative packages.

The U.S. Congress has introduced a variety of legislation to fortify the growth of manufacturing as it relates to energy. To date, the 119th Congress has introduced 23 bills related to industrial policy in the energy sector. Of these, none have become law, and five have been passed by one chamber. A large majority, 70 percent (16), were introduced with bipartisan cosponsorship. Bipartisan cosponsorship is important for industrial policy durability and signals broad political consensus around the importance of manufacturing to U.S. economic and national security objectives.

To explore the content of the legislation, the authors categorized the legislation according to key policy objectives: manufacturing capacity, infrastructure and enabling conditions, supply chain security and critical inputs, trade, competitiveness and national security, or workforce and economic development.

Globally, industrial policy now serves as a primary instrument for shaping economic and strategic outcomes. According to the International Monetary Fund, competitiveness is the leading motivation, accounting for roughly 40 percent of policies worldwide, followed by climate objectives and grid resilience. Although national security and geopolitical considerations are frequently referenced, they constitute a smaller share of explicit policy aims. Based on the stated intent of legislation introduced in the U.S. 119th Congress, roughly 70 percent of industrial policy legislation focuses on strengthening competitiveness, while nearly 20 percent addresses grid resilience. Notably, despite the prominence of climate considerations in global industrial policy discourse, no current industrial policy bills identify climate as their primary objective, underscoring a divergence in climate-related legislative prioritization.

The current portfolio of introduced legislation for energy manufacturing growth primarily focuses on domestic production and supply chain strengthening, with only 9 percent of proposed policies targeting global impact areas such as international competitiveness or foreign investment frameworks. Most legislation emphasizes strengthening national competitiveness, enhancing security, reducing foreign reliance (30 percent), reinforcing supply chains (22 percent), and increasing domestic energy manufacturing outputs (22 percent). A smaller share of bills addresses industrial infrastructure and workforce development, leaving potential gaps in long-term capacity building.

In addition to the main purpose of the legislation, the authors also categorized the main policy lever(s) utilized within each bill. Policy levers might include production incentives; public finance; procurement and standards; trade and sourcing measures (e.g., rules of origin and foreign-trade zones), or strategic stockpiles and recycling. Process levers to improve manufacturing output cover coordinated permitting, prezoned sites, and supporting utilities, ports, and rail. Innovation-spurring policies range from research and development (R&D) to technology transfer, first-of-a-kind demonstration funding, and demand-pull. Workforce options typically include apprenticeships, training subsidies, credential recognition, or targeted immigration. Data and transparency tools and investment in new studies often provide benefits across this suite of identified issues.

The policy levers introduced in the 119th Congress’s manufacturing legislation are heavily concentrated on domestic incentives and tax credits, which appear in over half of the proposed legislation. This reflects a strong reliance on fiscal measures to stimulate manufacturing activity. R&D investment, while present, represents a secondary emphasis, suggesting recognition of the need for technological advancement but less direct prioritization relative to immediate production and competitiveness.

As Congress continues to shape the role of energy industrial policy, the evolution of these targeted pieces of legislation offers early signals of where U.S. energy-related manufacturing may ultimately be headed. The current landscape reflects a Congress focused on near-term competitiveness and domestic production, but that leaves broader structural challenges, such as R&D capacity, workforce, and infrastructure needs, only partially addressed. 

Kayla Main is an energy consultant with the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Leslie Abrahams is a deputy director and senior fellow with the Energy Security and Climate Change program at CSIS.