Lasers are in fact energy weapons more than electrical weapons - though they are powered by electricity, the weaponized physical mechanism is light, not a flow of electric charge (there are even chemical lasers IRL that don't need electricity to work).

All the weapons are energy weapons. Operating on electricity was the best property I could find that all weapons in the category possess, and no weapon outside it does.

All the weapons are energy weapons...

I feel this statement rather strange (or ambiguous). At least normal people won't call a typical pistol or submachine gun as "energy" weapon... Yes, all weapons need energy to work, but at least it would be rather strange to call a bow as "energy" weapon, although it is using the kinetic energy to deal damage...
Maybe we should first talk about how these terms are defined, or common classification method used?

When we talk about a certain gun/cannon is a certain type weapon (whether "energy"/"melee"/etc), very often we are talking about either of the below classification method:
A) Power source.
B) Form of damage / projectile.

If using classification method A, then we will come into terms like man-powered (e.g., sword, axe, bow), firearms (from muskets to modern rifles), steam-powered (e.g., steam cannon, steam machine gun, though most of them are unsucessful), electric-powered (e.g., chainsaw, real-world experimental rail gun, Factorio laser turret), or mix of above sources (like Minigun, while it is using the firearms bullets, it also relies on power to electric motor for the rotating barrel to work).
This is more used on describing history of human weapon advancement, however, at least not such useful in comparing effectiveness of two weapons. Like we do not think chainsaw and rail gun is comparable, although they are both "electric weapons" under this classification.

When talking about damage type, we are using classification method B. For typical rifles firing "normal" bullets, then they are the "kinetic" weapons like you have suggested. Those rounds/shells or submarine torpedoes relying on explosions to deal damage are called "explosive" weapons instead.
Now end of all preamble, we come back to the main argument: all those "energy weapons"...
What is a real "electric weapon"? Electric charges must exist, since it relies on the electric current to deal the damage. The tasers used by police belongs to this category. Tesla coil from Red Alert series too.
The "projectile" of laser turret/PLD is high-energy photon, which is electrically neutral (at least under Earth physics). So it has absolutely nothing to do with "electric". Real-world laser (like diamond cutting) is actually relying on "heat" to do the job.
Well, you may say it's a sci-fi laser. But other sci-fi laser-like weapon, such as Star Trek phaser, plasma, Star Wars laser... are actually firing charged particles. The electric charge just allow the particles to be accelerated, whereas the "dangerous" particle itself (be it plasma or any imaginary particles) deal the main damage. So technically, you can call it anything (like laser weapon, plasma weapon, particle weapon, etc.) EXCEPT "electric weapon".

Sorry about the wall of text.
In summary, just keep it named as "energy weapons" (as a superset of electric, laser weapons, but NOT including firearms, cannons), or narrow it down as "laser weapons".
The terms "electrical weapons" or "electric weapons" should not be applied to the laser turrets and PLDs.

I came here to point out the same thing, but it appears Schall already has this under control. So I guess I'll just say +1

I agree that it would be strange to call a bow an energy weapon, because it is strange to call anything an energy weapon.

I don't mean to imply that laser guns do electrical damage. But I don't believe that it is wrong to name one category of weapons for one property and another category of weapons for another. We see this in the real world: rifles are named for the rifling in the barrel, semi-automatics for their automatic loading of their chamber, pellet guns for their projectiles, non-lethal weapons for their intended (non-)effects and so on. A single weapon can belong to multiple categories, for different reasons.

I also think to myself, what is it that makes one research boost these different weapons? Perhaps it is an upgrade to the electrical systems.

The problem with naming it 'laser weapons' is that the research covers an electric spark attack from Destroyer robots. I can't help what the categories are, only what they are called.

Until miniguns are in the game, actually powered by electricity, and not boosted by the research, I'm not going to worry about it.

By the way, my mod has never referred to anything as 'kinetic weapons'. I changed 'physical damage' to 'kinetic damage', and have since changed that to 'puncture damage'. That last change is because I found out vehicle impacts are not covered by it. But that is a damage type, not a weapon type. The category of bullet-firing weapons seems to just be called 'weapons' by the game. I might change that in a future version.

Just call them "Directed Energy Weapon"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
The term is used for lasers, particle weapons and directed discharge weapons (like the destroyer capsules have).

I think sh4dow and schallfalke have got it. The lasers (and other "energy weapons") in game are specifically directed energy weapons, and a number of the weapons included in the "energy weapons" category are not necessarily electric weapons.