Today, we face new challenges: winning the global AI race and fueling an American manufacturing renaissance.

Doing so requires an enormous amount of electricity—much more than America can generate today. It’s an undertaking that will take Herculean efforts of infrastructure building unlike anything we’ve seen since the end of World War II.

To maintain American dominance on a global stage, the U.S. 450 gigawatts of generation over the next five years—to put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of adding enough generation to power 75 Miami metro areas or 11 Floridas. For context, just over 40 gigawatts of new natural gas and nuclear has been built over the last five years in the U.S.

Now is not the time to take options off the table. The stakes are too high. Finishing second in artificial intelligence cannot be an option. Nor should squandering an opportunity to create American jobs.

Clean energy tax credits

It’s why the debate over clean energy tax credits cannot be just about renewable energy. It’s much more than that. It’s about whether we want to turn our backs on the only forms of power generation available at scale at a time when the U.S. needs every electron it can get.

I say this not as an ideologue, but as the CEO of the country’s largest electric provider and America’s quintessential all-forms-of-energy company.

NextEra Energy is not just a leader in home-grown renewables. We own and operate more natural gas power plants than anyone in America. We also operate one of the nation’s largest nuclear fleets. We own pipelines and a natural gas extraction business. Our sole abiding interest is delivering low-cost energy to our customers as quickly as possible.

It’s clear Congress —we’re not here to debate that. But for the sake of America’s power supply, economy, and national security, we urge lawmakers to take a measured approach.

Because new nuclear power plants are not available until the mid-2030s and traditional power plants take years to build and turbines , a full-stop, immediate elimination of credits or a change to start of construction would effectively shut off America’s supply of new power plants through the end of the decade.

Until then, America’s only option is to build wind, solar, and battery storage—which can serve as a bridge while we expand traditional power plant supply chains and workforces.

Lower energy costs

Last week’s Senate Finance Committee acknowledges this reality and offers a pragmatic approach to phasing out the clean energy credits, recognizing that businesses signed contracts and made enormous capital decisions based on current law. By some estimates, over $1 trillion of U.S. energy infrastructure investments could be put at risk.

Practical, commonsense provisions, like tying credits to the start of construction as they are phased out, provide a runway to finish projects and put much-needed electrons onto the grid while keeping power prices low for American homes and businesses.

Remember, energy companies do not get the credits—they flow directly to American homeowners and business owners through lower energy costs. And in rural communities across America, renewable and storage projects inject significant tax revenue often used for essential services like police, schools, and roads.

Investing in American infrastructure and putting our country first should not divide us. We should be united about what’s at stake, compromise in deference to the facts, and work together to build what America needs.

We have a golden opportunity to meet this uniquely American moment. Let’s come together and get this right for America.

John Ketchum is the chairman and CEO of NextEra Energy, one of the largest electric power and energy infrastructure companies in North America.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

Two US senators have called on the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate Spotify over allegations that its streaming “bundling” practice harms consumers and could “damage” the marketplace and the music royalty system.

In March 2024, Spotify reclassified its Premium subscription tiers as “bundles,” as they now include 15 hours of audiobook access each month.

The move controversially resulted in Spotify paying a lower mechanical royalty rate to publishers and songwriters in the United States.

That’s because, under a 2022 legal settlement called Phonorecords IV, music publishers and music streaming services agreed that ‘bundle’ services in the United States are permitted to pay a lower mechanical royalty rate to publishers and songwriters than standalone music subscription services.

In May last year, the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) sued Spotify for allegedly underpaying royalties to songwriters and publishers after reclassifying its Premium Individual, Duo, and Family subscription streaming plans as Bundled Subscription Offerings because those plans now offer access to audiobooks.

The lawsuit was dismissed in January, and the MLC asked the court in February to reconsider the dismissal.

On Friday (June 20), Senators Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, and Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat, sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson, requesting an investigation into Spotify’s bundling practice.

They wrote: “We have serious concerns about Spotify’s recent move to convert all of its premium music subscribers into different—and ultimately higher-priced — bundled subscriptions without their knowledge or consent.”

“These actions harm consumers and could deeply damage the marketplace and the music royalty system. We urge the FTC to investigate the impact of Spotify’s recent actions.”

Marsha Blackburn and Ben Ray Luján, US Senators

The letter added: “These actions harm consumers and could deeply damage the marketplace and the music royalty system. We urge the FTC to investigate the impact of Spotify’s recent actions, to take steps to protect Americans from being forced into subscriptions without notice or choice, and to safeguard the music marketplace.”

The senators allege Spotify “exploited” federal copyright regulations by automatically converting Premium subscribers into bundled plans that include audiobooks without consumers’ consent or notice. This allowed the platform to pay a lower music royalty rate, they wrote.

“Spotify’s intent seems clear—to slash the statutory royalties it pays to songwriters and music publishers. Not only has this harmed our creative community, but this action has also harmed consumers.”

“Spotify’s intent seems clear — to slash the statutory royalties it pays to songwriters and music publishers. Not only has this harmed our creative community, but this action has also harmed consumers.”

Marsha Blackburn and Ben Ray Luján, US Senators

Earlier this month, the National Music Publishers’ Association said Spotify‘s decision to reclassify its premium music service as a bundled offering, has, “by Spotify’s own numbers” resulted in a $230 million loss for publishers during its first year of implementation.

The NMPA projects that music publishers will “lose over $3.1 billion” through 2032 due to Spotify‘s bundling practice.

The senators allege that Spotify’s audiobooks service “is set at an artificially high price for the purpose of gaming federal regulations and deeply cutting music royalty payments.”

Spotify’s standalone Audiobook Access plan costs $9.99 monthly for 15 hours of listening from a catalog of 200,000 titles, while its music-only Basic Plan provides unlimited access to over 100 million songs for just $10.99.

The senators wrote: “Under the regulations, the higher the Audiobooks Access plan is priced, the lower the music royalty Spotify must pay. Additionally, Spotify’s licenses for audiobooks are consumption-based, so Spotify has little downside if the Audiobooks Access plan is overpriced.

Their letter added that, following “pushback” last year, Spotify “quietly re-launched” a music-only subscription option called the Basic Plan. However, Senators Blackburn and Luján said this tier is only available to certain existing subscribers, not new subscribers.

“[Spotify’s] approach to expanding its offering and raising prices is industry standard. We notify users a month in advance of any price increases and offer easy cancellations as well as multiple plans for users to consider.”

Spotify representative

They wrote: “Spotify has hidden the Basic Plan so that existing subscribers must jump through endless hoops to find the option. As of January 2025, only a handful of Spotify’s millions of Premium Plan subscribers switched back to a music-only ‘Basic’ plan.”

A Spotify representative issued a response via Variety on Friday, saying the company’s “approach to expanding its offering and raising prices is industry standard”  and that it “notif[ies] users a month in advance of any price increases and offer easy cancellations as well as multiple plans for users to consider” as part of an effort to “provide consumers incredible value and a best-in-class experience”.

The senators’ intervention represents the latest bipartisan action over Spotify’s bundling practice. Last year, Blackburn was joined by Democrat Congressmen Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff in writing a letter addressed to Shira Perlmutter, the US Register of Copyrights, raising questions about whether Spotify’s move is in line with the spirit of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) of 2018.

“Few would expect customers to purchase audiobooks at that rate when it is available for free with the music service for only $1 more per month. This was, however, the same moment in which Spotify automatically reclassified the 50 million subscribers in its music services into a bundle,” they wrote at the time.

At the NMPA’s 2025 Annual Meeting, the organization’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel Danielle Aguirre highlighted how the streaming giant’s bundled offering has, “by Spotify’s own numbers” resulted in a $230 million loss for publishers in its first year.

“We are extremely pleased that United States senators Blackburn and Lujan are also asking the FTC to investigate this as it will have ripple effects across other platforms.”

David Israelite, NMPA

Aguirre said: “These losses will continue if we can’t reverse or correct Spotify’s actions. In fact, if we don’t stop them, we are projected to lose over $3.1 billion through the next CRB period,” which will be Phonorecords V, which determines mechanical royalty rates for 2028 through 2032.

NMPA President and CEO David Israelite issued a statement on Friday, saying: “As we have said since they started their bundling scheme last year – Spotify’s forced conversion of subscribers doesn’t only hurt songwriters – it hurts consumers.

“We are extremely pleased that United States senators Blackburn and Lujan are also asking the FTC to investigate this as it will have ripple effects across other platforms. These unfair business practices hurt music creators and users and it must stop.”

Music Business Worldwide

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world

Top central bankers have delivered a scathing assessment of stablecoins, saying they “perform badly” on key requirements for being widely used as money, disavowing US President Donald Trump’s push to make them a pillar of mainstream finance.

The Bank for International Settlements said stablecoins fail the three main tests of any money because they are not backed by central banks, lack sufficient guardrails against illicit usage and do not have the flexibility of funding needed to generate loans.

Stablecoins are designed to act as a bridge between volatile crypto assets such as Bitcoin and traditional monetary systems by tracking the value of fiat currencies with one-for-one backing in safer assets such as government bonds and money market funds.

Their creators boast that by transferring money over the internet, they are more efficient than international bank transfers. However, the fact that they can be held anonymously has made them popular with crypto traders and a conduit for crime including drug trafficking and money laundering.

Hyun Song Shin, head of the BIS monetary and economic department, told reporters that stablecoins carried the risk of rapid withdrawals by investors. “It’s really asking, if there are such redemptions in the stablecoin space, what would be the consequences,” he said.

Governments in the US and UK are introducing regulatory frameworks for stablecoins in response to their growing usage. There are about $250bn in circulation already, dominated by dollar-based tokens such as Tether and Circle’s USDC.

Since Trump won last year’s presidential election with a pledge to “make the US the crypto capital of the world”, his administration has revoked many Biden-era restrictions on crypto usage. The president is also a backer of World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency group with its own stablecoin USD1.

The BIS, the forum for the world’s main central banks, said in a chapter from its annual economic report released on Tuesday: “While stablecoins’ future role remains uncertain, their poor performance on the three tests suggests they may at best serve a subsidiary role.”

Stablecoins “have been the go-to choice for illicit use to bypass integrity safeguards”, the report said, pointing out that they lack the “know-your-customer” controls of traditional finance.

It found they “fare poorly” in the settlement function of money due to their lack of backing by central banks, which act as lenders of last resort in a crisis. 

“Stablecoins often trade at varying exchange rates, undermining singleness,” it said. “They are also unable to fulfil the ‘no questions asked’ principle of bank-issued money.”

Due to their need to always be backed by an equivalent amount of assets, they also do not have the “elasticity” that allows banks to create extra money by granting loans, the BIS said.

“Any additional issuance requires full upfront payment by holders, which undermines elasticity by imposing a ‘cash-in-advance’ constraint,” it added.

Warning that “loss of monetary sovereignty and capital flight are major concerns, particularly for emerging market and developing economies”, the BIS said bank-issued stablecoins “may introduce new risks, depending on their legal and governance arrangements”.

The body believes it would be better to create a centralised database of tokenised deposits of central banks and commercial banks to speed up and cut the cost of cross-border payments.

It is trialling such a system with seven major central banks and 43 commercial institutions, called Project Agorá.

“Society has a choice,” the BIS said. “The monetary system can transform into a next-generation system built on tried and tested foundations of trust and technologically superior, programmable infrastructures.”

“Or society can relearn the historical lessons about the limitations of unsound money, with real societal costs, by taking a detour involving private digital currencies that fail the triple test of singleness, elasticity and integrity.”