2026 American Energy Scorecard Senate Results

This week, the American Energy Alliance released its 2026 American Energy Scorecard for the United States Senate. The AEA Scorecard scores voting and cosponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy policy in order to inform constituents and hold elected officials accountable. This year’s scorecard compiles 34 votes from the Senators who will be finishing their term in the 119th Congress. Unfortunately, only 11 Senators* achieved at least a 90% score, the minimum score AEA’s scorecard uses to classify a Senator as an Energy Champion.  Only two Senators* achieved a 100% score, in contrast to the 211 representatives in the House who did.

The following core principles guide the American Energy Scorecard:

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes
  • Giving Americans, not Washington bureaucrats, the power to make their own energy choices
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environment policies
  • Reducing the role of government in energy markets
  • Eliminating the subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that lead to higher energy costs

All members are provided advanced notice that AEA plans to score an upcoming vote. The scored votes over the six year terms served by the Senators cover a range of energy and environmental policy issues. 

The full list of Senatorial American Energy Champions completing their six year term in the 119th Congress (Senatorial Class II), or are standing in a special election:

  • Sen. Pete Ricketts* (R-NE) – 100%
  • Sen. Jon Husted* (R-OH) – 100% 
  • Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) – 97% 
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-TN) – 97%
  • Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-TN) – 94%
  • Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) – 94%
  • Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) – 94%
  • Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) – 94%
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) – 91%
  • Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) – 91%
  • Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) – 91%
  • Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) – 91%

While AEA applauds all the 11 senators who achieved at least 90% we must also note those members in key races whose voting record was harmful to their districts. Of the many low-scoring Senators, Senators John Hickenlooper (15%) of Colorado and Ben Lujan (12%) of New Mexico were especially notable given the important role energy production plays within their states’ economies.

Additionally, below is a list of the Senators who scored a 0% over the course of their latest term:

  • Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
  • Sen. John Reed (D-RI)
  • Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
  • Sen. Christopher Coons (D-DE)

*Senator Jon Husted’s score is based on his time in the Senate after his appointment in 2025. Senator Pete Ricketts’s score is based on his time in the Senate after his appointment in 2023.


To view the 2026 Energy Champions for the House of Representatives visit this page. To see the full results please visit the American Energy Scorecard.

2026 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives

This week, the American Energy Alliance released its 2026 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives. The AEA Scorecard scores voting and cosponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy policy in order to inform constituents and hold elected officials accountable. This year’s scorecard compiles 19 votes from the 119th Congress. In total, 214 U.S. House members achieved a score of 100%.

The following core principles guide the American Energy Scorecard:

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes
  • Giving Americans, not Washington bureaucrats, the power to make their own energy choices
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environment policies
  • Reducing the role of government in energy markets
  • Eliminating the subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that lead to higher energy costs

All members are provided advanced notice that AEA plans to score an upcoming vote. The scored votes in the 119th Congress cover a range of energy issues. 

The full list of American Energy Champions within the House of Representatives:

  • Rep. Aaron Bean
  • Rep. Abraham Hamadeh
  • Rep. Addison McDowell
  • Rep. Adrian Smith
  • Rep. Andrew Clyde
  • Rep. Andrew Garbarino
  • Rep. Andrew Ogles
  • Rep. Andy Barr
  • Rep. Andy Biggs
  • Rep. Andy Harris
  • Rep. Ann Wagner
  • Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
  • Rep. Ashley Hinson
  • Rep. August Pfluger
  • Rep. Austin Scott
  • Rep. Barry Loudermilk
  • Rep. Barry Moore
  • Rep. Ben Cline
  • Rep. Beth Van Duyne
  • Rep. Bill Huizenga
  • Rep. Blake Moore
  • Rep. Brad Finstad
  • Rep. Brad Knott
  • Rep. Brandon Gill
  • Rep. Brett Guthrie
  • Rep. Brian Babin
  • Rep. Brian Jack
  • Rep. Brian Mast
  • Rep. Bruce Westerman
  • Rep. Bryan Steil
  • Rep. Burgess Owens
  • Rep. Byron Donalds
  • Rep. Carlos Gimenez
  • Rep. Carol Miller
  • Rep. Celeste Maloy
  • Rep. Charles Fleischmann
  • Rep. Chip Roy
  • Rep. Christopher Smith
  • Rep. Chuck Edwards
  • Rep. Claudia Tenney
  • Rep. Clay Higgins
  • Rep. Cliff Bentz
  • Rep. Cory Mills
  • Rep. Craig Goldman
  • Rep. Dale Strong
  • Rep. Dan Crenshaw
  • Rep. Dan Newhouse
  • Rep. Daniel Meuser
  • Rep. Daniel Webster
  • Rep. Darin LaHood
  • Rep. Darrell Issa
  • Rep. David Joyce
  • Rep. David Kustoff
  • Rep. David Rouzer
  • Rep. David Schweikert
  • Rep. David Taylor
  • Rep. David Valadao
  • Rep. Derek Schmidt
  • Rep. Diana Harshbarger
  • Rep. Doug LaMalfa
  • Rep. Dusty Johnson
  • Rep. Earl Carter
  • Rep. Elijah Crane
  • Rep. Elise Stefanik
  • Rep. Eric Burlison
  • Rep. Eric Crawford
  • Rep. Erin Houchin
  • Rep. Frank Lucas
  • Rep. Gabe Evans
  • Rep. Gary Palmer
  • Rep. Glenn Grothman
  • Rep. Glenn Thompson
  • Rep. Gregory Murphy
  • Rep. Gus Bilirakis
  • Rep. Guy Reschenthaler
  • Rep. H. Griffith
  • Rep. Harold Rogers
  • Rep. Harriet Hageman
  • Rep. J. Hill
  • Rep. Jack Bergman
  • Rep. Jake Ellzey
  • Rep. James Baird
  • Rep. James Comer
  • Rep. Jason Smith
  • Rep. Jay Obernolte
  • Rep. Jeff Crank
  • Rep. Jeff Hurd
  • Rep. Jefferson Shreve
  • Rep. Jefferson Van Drew
  • Rep. Jennifer Kiggans
  • Rep. Jim Jordan
  • Rep. Jodey Arrington
  • Rep. Joe Wilson
  • Rep. John Carter
  • Rep. John James
  • Rep. John Joyce
  • Rep. John McGuire
  • Rep. John Moolenaar
  • Rep. John Rose
  • Rep. John Rutherford
  • Rep. Josh Brecheen
  • Rep. Juan Ciscomani
  • Rep. Julia Letlow
  • Rep. Julie Fedorchak
  • Rep. Kat Cammack
  • Rep. Keith Self
  • Rep. Ken Calvert
  • Rep. Kevin Hern
  • Rep. Kevin Kiley
  • Rep. Lance Gooden
  • Rep. Laurel Lee
  • Rep. Lauren Boebert
  • Rep. Lisa McClain
  • Rep. Lloyd Smucker
  • Rep. Maria Salazar
  • Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks
  • Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart
  • Rep. Mark Alford
  • Rep. Mark Amodei
  • Rep. Mark Harris
  • Rep. Mark Messmer
  • Rep. Marlin Stutzman
  • Rep. Mary Miller
  • Rep. Max Miller
  • Rep. Michael Baumgartner
  • Rep. Michael Cloud
  • Rep. Michael Guest
  • Rep. Michael Lawler
  • Rep. Michael McCaul
  • Rep. Michael Rulli
  • Rep. Michael Simpson
  • Rep. Michael Turner
  • Rep. Michelle Fischbach
  • Rep. Mike Bost
  • Rep. Mike Carey
  • Rep. Mike Collins
  • Rep. Mike Ezell
  • Rep. Mike Flood
  • Rep. Mike Haridopolos
  • Rep. Mike Johnson
  • Rep. Mike Kelly
  • Rep. Mike Kennedy
  • Rep. Mike Rogers
  • Rep. Monica De La Cruz
  • Rep. Morgan Luttrell
  • Rep. Nancy Mace
  • Rep. Nathaniel Moran
  • Rep. Neal Dunn
  • Rep. Nicholas Begich
  • Rep. Nicholas Langworthy
  • Rep. Nick LaLota
  • Rep. Nicole Malliotakis
  • Rep. Pat Fallon
  • Rep. Pat Harrigan
  • Rep. Paul Gosar
  • Rep. Pete Sessions
  • Rep. Pete Stauber
  • Rep. Ralph Norman
  • Rep. Randy Feenstra
  • Rep. Randy Weber
  • Rep. Richard Hudson
  • Rep. Richard McCormick
  • Rep. Rick Allen
  • Rep. Riley Moore
  • Rep. Robert Aderholt
  • Rep. Robert Bresnahan
  • Rep. Robert Latta
  • Rep. Robert Onder
  • Rep. Robert Wittman
  • Rep. Roger Williams
  • Rep. Ron Estes
  • Rep. Ronny Jackson
  • Rep. Rudy Yakym
  • Rep. Russ Fulcher
  • Rep. Ryan Mackenzie
  • Rep. Ryan Zinke
  • Rep. Sam Graves
  • Rep. Scott DesJarlais
  • Rep. Scott Fitzgerald
  • Rep. Scott Franklin
  • Rep. Scott Perry
  • Rep. Sheri Biggs
  • Rep. Stephanie Bice
  • Rep. Steve Scalise
  • Rep. Steve Womack
  • Rep. Thomas Kean
  • Rep. Thomas Massie
  • Rep. Thomas Tiffany
  • Rep. Tim Burchett
  • Rep. Tim Moore
  • Rep. Tim Walberg
  • Rep. Tom Barrett
  • Rep. Tom Cole
  • Rep. Tom Emmer
  • Rep. Tom McClintock
  • Rep. Tony Wied
  • Rep. Tracey Mann
  • Rep. Trent Kelly
  • Rep. Troy Balderson
  • Rep. Troy Downing
  • Rep. Troy Nehls
  • Rep. Vern Buchanan
  • Rep. Victoria Spartz
  • Rep. Vince Fong
  • Rep. Virginia Foxx
  • Rep. W. Steube
  • Rep. Warren Davidson
  • Rep. Wesley Hunt
  • Rep. William Timmons
  • Rep. Young Kim
  • Rep. Zachary Nunn

While AEA applauds all the members who achieved 100%, we must also note members in key races whose overall voting record was especially harmful to their districts.  Representatives Gabe Vasquez (21%) of New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District, Vincient Gonzalez (63%) of Texas’ 34th Congressional District, Henry Cuellar (74%) of Texas’ 28th Congressional District, and Adam Gray (47%) of California’s 13th Congressional District, all scored poorly, which is especially notable given the important role energy production plays in their districts.  

Here is the full list of the members who scored 0%:

  • Rep. Adam Smith
  • Rep. Adriano Espaillat
  • Rep. Al Green
  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • Rep. Alma Adams
  • Rep. Ami Bera
  • Rep. Andrea Salinas
  • Rep. Angie Craig
  • Rep. Ayanna Pressley
  • Rep. Becca Balint
  • Rep. Betty McCollum
  • Rep. Bill Foster
  • Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman
  • Rep. Brad Sherman
  • Rep. Bradley Schneider
  • Rep. Brendan Boyle
  • Rep. Brittany Pettersen
  • Rep. Chellie Pingree
  • Rep. Chris Pappas
  • Rep. Christopher Deluzio
  • Rep. CLEO FIELDS
  • Rep. Daniel Goldman
  • Rep. Danny Davis
  • Rep. Dave Min
  • Rep. David Scott
  • Rep. Debbie Dingell
  • Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  • Rep. Deborah Ross
  • Rep. Delia Ramirez
  • Rep. Derek Tran
  • Rep. Diana DeGette
  • Rep. Dina Titus
  • Rep. Donald Beyer
  • Rep. Donald Norcross
  • Rep. Doris Matsui
  • Rep. Dwight Evans
  • Rep. Ed Case
  • Rep. Eleanor Norton
  • Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
  • Rep. Emilia Sykes
  • Rep. Emily Randall
  • Rep. Eric Sorensen
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell
  • Rep. Frank Pallone
  • Rep. Frederica Wilson
  • Rep. Gabe Amo
  • Rep. George Latimer
  • Rep. Gerald Connolly
  • Rep. Gilbert Cisneros
  • Rep. Glenn Ivey
  • Rep. Grace Meng
  • Rep. Greg Casar
  • Rep. Greg Stanton
  • Rep. Gregory Meeks
  • Rep. Gwen Moore
  • Rep. Hakeem Jeffries
  • Rep. Haley Stevens
  • Rep. Henry Johnson
  • Rep. Herbert Conaway
  • Rep. Ilhan Omar
  • Rep. Jahana Hayes
  • Rep. Jake Auchincloss
  • Rep. James Clyburn
  • Rep. James Himes
  • Rep. James McGovern
  • Rep. Jamie Raskin
  • Rep. Janice Schakowsky
  • Rep. Jared Huffman
  • Rep. Jasmine Crockett
  • Rep. Jason Crow
  • Rep. Jennifer McClellan
  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler
  • Rep. Jesús García
  • Rep. Jill Tokuda
  • Rep. Jimmy Gomez
  • Rep. Jimmy Panetta
  • Rep. Joaquin Castro
  • Rep. Joe Courtney
  • Rep. Joe Neguse
  • Rep. John Garamendi
  • Rep. John Larson
  • Rep. John Mannion
  • Rep. Johnny Olszewski
  • Rep. Jonathan Jackson
  • Rep. Josh Gottheimer
  • Rep. Josh Harder
  • Rep. Juan Vargas
  • Rep. Judy Chu
  • Rep. Julia Brownley
  • Rep. Katherine Clark
  • Rep. Kathy Castor
  • Rep. Kelly Morrison
  • Rep. Kevin Mullin
  • Rep. Kim Schrier
  • Rep. Kweisi Mfume
  • Rep. LaMonica McIver
  • Rep. Lateefah Simon
  • Rep. Laura Friedman
  • Rep. Lauren Underwood
  • Rep. Linda Sánchez
  • Rep. Lloyd Doggett
  • Rep. Lois Frankel
  • Rep. Lori Trahan
  • Rep. Lucy McBath
  • Rep. Luz Rivas
  • Rep. Madeleine Dean
  • Rep. Maggie Goodlander
  • Rep. Marilyn Strickland
  • Rep. Mark DeSaulnier
  • Rep. Mark Pocan
  • Rep. Mark Takano
  • Rep. Mary Scanlon
  • Rep. Maxine Dexter
  • Rep. Maxine Waters
  • Rep. Maxwell Frost
  • Rep. Melanie Stansbury
  • Rep. Michael Waltz
  • Rep. Mike Levin
  • Rep. Mike Quigley
  • Rep. Mike Thompson
  • Rep. Mikie Sherrill
  • Rep. Morgan McGarvey
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi
  • Rep. Nanette Barragán
  • Rep. Nellie Pou
  • Rep. Nikema Williams
  • Rep. Norma Torres
  • Rep. Nydia Velázquez
  • Rep. Paul Tonko
  • Rep. Pete Aguilar
  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal
  • Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
  • Rep. Rashida Tlaib
  • Rep. Raúl Grijalva
  • Rep. Raul Ruiz
  • Rep. Richard Neal
  • Rep. Ritchie Torres
  • Rep. Ro Khanna
  • Rep. Robert Garcia
  • Rep. Robert Menendez
  • Rep. Robert Scott
  • Rep. Robin Kelly
  • Rep. Rosa DeLauro
  • Rep. Salud Carbajal
  • Rep. Sam Liccardo
  • Rep. Sara Jacobs
  • Rep. Sarah Elfreth
  • Rep. Sarah McBride
  • Rep. Scott Peters
  • Rep. Sean Casten
  • Rep. Seth Magaziner
  • Rep. Seth Moulton
  • Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
  • Rep. Shontel Brown
  • Rep. Steny Hoyer
  • Rep. Stephen Lynch
  • Rep. Steve Cohen
  • Rep. Suhas Subramanyam
  • Rep. Summer Lee
  • Rep. Suzan DelBene
  • Rep. Suzanne Bonamici
  • Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove
  • Rep. Sylvia Garcia
  • Rep. Ted Lieu
  • Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez
  • Rep. Troy Carter
  • Rep. Val Hoyle
  • Rep. Valerie Foushee
  • Rep. Veronica Escobar
  • Rep. Wesley Bell
  • Rep. William Keating
  • Rep. Yassamin Ansari
  • Rep. Yvette Clarke
  • Rep. Zoe Lofgren

To view the 2026 Energy Champions for the Senate visit this page. To see the full results please visit the American Energy Scorecard.

AEA Sends Letter Of Support For H.R. 8330, Stop The Climate Shakedowns Act

On Wednesday, September 16 the American Energy Alliance sent a formal letter of support to the offices of Representative Jim Jordan and Representative Harriet Hageman thanking them for bringing H.R. 8330, the Stop the Climate Shakedowns Act, to the full Committee on the Judiciary for a vote. Should the bill pass through committee, AEA calls on Jordan and Hageman to urge Congressional leadership to bring the measure to the House floor without delay. The full letter is available below:


Dear Chairman Jim Jordan:

On behalf of the American Energy Alliance (AEA) and the millions of working families who rely on affordable, reliable American energy every day, I am writing to express my support for H.R. 8330, the Stop the Climate Shakedowns Act, and thank you for bringing the measure to the full Committee on the Judiciary for a vote.

The American energy sector is under a coordinated, radical attack by a loose network of state trial attorneys, activist judges, and municipal politicians trying to weaponize state courts to bankrupt the domestic energy industry. These municipal cash grabs, which are disguised as “climate lawsuits” and state “climate superfund” tax schemes, are nothing short of an unconstitutional tax on hard-working Americans.

For years, activists and municipal leaders in places like Boulder and Honolulu have tried to use state law to bypass the democratic process. Lawsuits like Suncor Energy v. Boulder County and City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco demand billions of dollars from American oil, natural gas, and coal producers for the lawful, highly regulated energy production that keeps our lights on, our homes warm, and our economy moving.

At the same time, Vermont’s disastrous “Climate Superfund” model is attempting to retroactively fine out-of-state energy producers for decades of lawful emissions. These schemes bypass constitutional due process guarantees, violate the Commerce Clause, and usurp federal authority over interstate environmental regulation and foreign affairs.

H.R. 8330 resolves these issues once and for all by:

  • Restoring Federal Exclusivity: Affirming that the federal government—not local city councils or municipal judges—holds sole jurisdiction over interstate environmental standards and greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Ending Abusive Litigation: Shutting down current and future state-law climate suits, including predatory claims targeting corporate speech, product marketing, and failure-to-warn theories.
  • Nullifying Unconstitutional Taxes: Voiding state-level “energy penalty” laws, preventing radical state legislatures from extorting out-of-state producers to fund local slush funds.
  • Securing the Entire Supply Chain: Protecting miners, drillers, refiners, truckers, and gas station operators from predatory class-action litigation.

If state courts and local politicians are allowed to fleece energy producers for hundreds of billions of dollars, everyday families will pay those costs at the gas pump and on their monthly power bills. A single county in Colorado or a single state legislature in Vermont should not have the authority to dictate national energy policy, dictate energy costs for consumers across all fifty states, or compromise national security.

Allowing local trial lawyers to weaponize state courts against domestic energy producers destroys the regulatory certainty required to invest in American production, driving up energy costs and handing economic leverage to foreign adversaries. H.R. 8330 provides the exact federal legislative preemption needed to protect American energy independence, defend the rule of law, and safeguard consumers from skyrocketing costs.

If this legislation passes your committee, we hope you will urge Congressional leadership to bring the measure to the House floor without delay. It is time for Congress to end these unconstitutional shakedowns so we can continue to produce the affordable, reliable energy that powers America.

Thank you, again, for your leadership. 

Sincerely,

Thomas Pyle
President, American Energy Alliance


Baseload is Back Thanks to Team Trump

WASHINGTON DC (9/15/26) – Yesterday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the repeal of federal greenhouse gas limits for coal- and natural gas- fired power plants. Administrator Zeldin also proposed rescinding every remaining greenhouse gas standard for the power sector. 

The limits required existing coal plants planning to operate past 2039 to meet a standard based on 90% carbon capture and storage (CCS) by 2032 and new baseload natural gas combustion turbines to meet a similar 90% CCS-based standard that would have been phased in by the early 2030s.

Tom Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“The 2024 power plant rule was never a standard plants could actually meet. It was a retirement calendar written as an emissions limit. Existing coal plants that wanted to run past 2039, and new baseload gas plants, were told to capture 90% of their CO2 by 2032 with a technology then operating at commercial scale at only one U.S. power plant or shut down by 2039. That is not setting a performance standard. That is deciding which plants get to exist, which is exactly what the Supreme Court said EPA could not do in West Virginia v. EPA.

“The companion proposal is just as important. With the 2009 Endangerment Finding rescinded, there is no longer any legal foundation for EPA to regulate power plant emissions in the name of global climate change. Congress never gave EPA that authority, and the agency is right to say so. We urge EPA to finalize the proposal promptly and give American utilities the certainty they need to build more always-on energy.

“President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin stand squarely on the side of the law, American families, and businesses. The Obama/Biden power plant retirement rule is one in a long line of policies that deliberately made energy more expensive and threatened grid reliability. This is a welcome and much-needed course correction.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact:
THOMAS.PYLE@ENERGYDC.ORG

Norway Says ‘No Deal’ To European Union’s Green New Deal

Norway continues to develop its oil and gas resources in the Barents Sea despite an EU policy against drilling in the Arctic on environmental grounds. Norway is not a member of the European Union. Norwegian Energy Minister Terje Aasland believes continued activity in the Barents Sea serves both Norwegian and European interests and that it is the country’s sovereign right to develop Barents Sea resources, even if the EU continues to support a moratorium on Arctic hydrocarbon supplies. Critics of hydrocarbon development argue that new Arctic projects would take many years to come online and do little to address Europe’s near-term energy challenges. Norway has ⁠argued that its parts of the Barents Sea opened to oil and gas activity are ice-free, and therefore less prone ⁠to oil spills and other environmental impacts.

The EU’s moratorium on Arctic drilling was enacted in 2021 due to the bloc’s climate commitments and stated environmental concerns. The ban does not allow drilling in Norway’s northern Barents Sea, which is estimated to contain most of the remaining Norwegian oil and gas resources. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), who is not known for supporting oil and gas development, said the European Union should reverse the current moratorium on drilling in the Arctic, as it is extremely important for European energy security. Reuters reports that the EU is considering revising its policy in response to concerns about energy security.

Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of ‌Ukraine, Norway, not an EU member but a close ally, has become Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas, meeting around 30% of the European Union and Britain’s gas demand. Norway also produces around 2% of global oil and provides significant hydropower exports to neighboring countries. In 2025, the country’s gas production was near record levels, and oil production attained its highest level since 2009. But production is expected to fall sharply after 2030 unless new resources are discovered and developed, which is why the Barents Sea resources are needed. Norway also aims to maintain oil and gas exports at current levels until at least 2035.

Critics also view developing these resources as creating stranded assets if the EU does not want them once they are developed. But according to Equinor, Norway’s largest oil firm, oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Barents Sea can be shipped anywhere in the world if prohibited for use by the EU.  Energy Minister Aasland has been outspoken in his defense of Norway’s energy resources, which has helped drive its significant oil and gas production in 2025.

Norway Goes to the Supreme Court to Overturn a Ruling

In 2023, two lower courts ruled in favor of Greenpeace and Young Friends of the Earth against the Norwegian government, finding that Norway failed to properly assess the environmental impact from Equinor’s Breidablikk and Aker BP’s Tyrving and Yggdrasil oilfield developments. Two fields – Breidablikk and Tyrving – are already producing, while Yggdrasil, Norway’s largest offshore oil project since 2019, is scheduled to begin production in 2027. The oil industry in Norway provides half the ​country’s export revenue and has given the nation the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.

Norway’s government has now asked the country’s Supreme Court to overturn that lower-court ruling, which invalidated the permits for the three oilfields. The lower courts have declined to order a halt to production while the legal process is ongoing and have also suggested that the government could seek to remedy regulatory shortcomings. If Greenpeace Norway wins this round, it believes Norwegian politicians would have to assess environmental damage from Norwegian Oil Production, e.g., how many lives will be lost, how many forest fires will be created, and how much ice will melt. The Supreme Court hearing is set to run for four days, and a verdict is expected later this year.

Norway Is No Longer Europe’s “Green Battery”

According to Energy Minister Terje Aasland, Norway no longer sees itself ‌as Europe’s “green battery.” In addition to oil and gas, Norway produces hydroelectric power from an extensive network of reservoirs and waterways ​feeding hydroelectric plants, which produce nearly 90% of the country’s electricity.  It exports excess hydropower to Europe via cross-border power cables when available. New power interconnectors, including links to Britain and Germany, were built to enable the connection, but they drew opposition in Norway because its electricity prices have been affected by European electricity prices, which have risen due to European climate policies. In other words, integration with Europe’s power system made Norway’s power system vulnerable to electricity price swings.

Norway has urged European countries to strengthen their stable power supply, weakened by coal and nuclear plant closures and a lack of investment in new gas-fired generation. Europe has instead focused more on intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, which do not provide stable power supplies. The country, however, remains committed to ​strong power sector cooperation with Europe.

Conclusion

Norway will continue to produce oil in the Arctic despite the EU moratorium on Arctic hydrocarbon supplies, as production in the Barents Sea is needed to meet its goal of maintaining oil and gas exports at current levels until at least 2035. Norway sees oil and gas production as necessary for Europe’s national security. Norway is asking the Supreme Court to overturn environmental verdicts by lower courts against its oil fields—a case which will be decided later this year. Norway has also decided it is no longer Europe’s “green battery,” as its interconnection with Europe has caused price swings driven by rising electricity prices from Europe’s net-zero policies, the retirement of stable generation sources, and heavy reliance on intermittent renewables.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Governor Gavin Takes Another Swing At Pricing Working Families Out Of Car Ownership

The California Energy Commission recently approved new rules to phase out the sale of replacement tires that do not meet the state’s energy-efficiency standards. The Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (RTEP) would mandate that “replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles” and help “promote driver safety by setting a minimum wet grip standard.”  The rules target a tire’s “rolling resistance,” or how much energy it takes to keep a tire moving down the road. Lower resistance means cars use less gas or electricity for better mileage, which state officials claimed will help affordability. The first phase of the rule begins in 2029, when replacement tires must meet a maximum rolling-resistance level of 9.1 newtons per kilonewton — a threshold that drops to 7.2 in 2033.

California claims the incremental cost for consumers would be very low – only $1.50 per tire during Phase 1 (2029-2033) and $6.50 per tire during Phase 2 (2033 and beyond). According to the state, a typical driver of a gasoline car with more efficient tires at the Phase 2 requirement would save $179 of gasoline over the life of a set of tires, or about seven times the incremental cost based on gasoline prices of $4.60 per gallon. At mid-2026 gasoline prices, the state says savings could be 25% higher. The California Energy Commission estimates that drivers could save $79 in gas or electricity costs within four months under the first phase of the regulations, and about $153 within seven months under the second phase. California Governor Gavin Newsom and other state politicians boast that the new rules would save drivers $1 billion a year.

However, while some tire brands say the new standards would save a couple of miles per gallon on the highway, drivers have not seen a difference. Further, the change could potentially remove 70% of the tires currently available to California drivers from the market and increase the cost of an average set of tires by hundreds of dollars. In state testimony, tire industry leaders indicate that actual price increases could reach several hundred dollars by the 2030s. According to the Tire Industry Association, average tire prices could rise from $81 to $157. If a car owner purchased four new tires, the difference could exceed $300 per vehicle. Higher prices could push vehicle owners to buy used tires, which cost about half the price of new tires, defeating the purpose of the new rule. Other buyers could put off buying tires for as long as possible, hurting sales when many tire businesses may be struggling.

The tire industry is not against tire efficiency, but it questions whether regulators have adequately shown the requirement will be cost-effective for consumers, as the industry does not believe the rules will reduce overall consumer costs. Most all-season replacement tires last roughly 65,000 miles, but the European-standard tires that would be mandated average 27,000 miles, meaning consumers will have to replace them twice as often. Other tire industry concerns include replacement tire compatibility and consistent enforcement that protects consumers and supports fair competition. Some critics see the new rules as forcing consumers to buy thinner tires that are more prone to flats in a state with some of the worst roads in the country, despite high fuel taxes meant to maintain them.

The reality is that state lawmakers refuse to address the real reasons California gasoline and diesel prices are the highest in the nation, such as the state’s taxes and environmental regulations that demand certain gasoline blends. And the new rules could make electric vehicles—politically correct vehicles in Newsom’s California—less affordable, since they could wear through tires more often because they are heavier due to their large batteries. All Americans should be concerned, since California regulations sometimes become de facto national standards because of the size of California’s market. Companies end up standardizing their products rather than producing multiple offerings for different states.

Tires are often an under-appreciated contributor to vehicle performance, safety, and drivability.  Reducing resistance affects braking and steering, which ultimately shape the driving experience. The California Energy Commission’s record on energy affordability is poor, judging by California’s extraordinarily high electricity, gasoline, and other energy prices.  It would be surprising if this latest rule did not increase overall costs for California drivers, given that record.

Conclusion

The California Energy Commission has approved new rules for replacement tires, mandating that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles. California officials, including Governor Newsom, claim the program will lower fuel costs for drivers, saving drivers $1 billion per year, while the tire industry believes the opposite—that tire costs will increase, exceeding $300 for a set of four tires, with little benefit from lower fuel costs. To lower gasoline and diesel prices, California should review the climate policies and fuel taxes that make it have the highest gas prices in the country. These policies invite energy unaffordability and drive businesses out of the state. All Americans should be concerned because California regulations sometimes become de facto national standards because of the size of California’s market.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Trump Administration Moves To Protect America’s Grid From Chinese Sabotage

On August 26, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency to ban the acquisition, importation, and installation of certain foreign-produced bulk-power system electrical equipment and software within the United States due to national security concerns. The order targeted “unusual and extraordinary foreign threats” such as hidden cyber backdoors, potential sabotage, and supply chain disruptions embedded in hardware from foreign countries, primarily to counter technology risks linked to China. The International Energy Agency estimates that China holds about 80% of worldwide manufacturing capacity for batteries and solar inverters, and the United States has imported large power transformers from China over the past decade. This tracks similar actions by the EU, as officials have become aware of potential security weaknesses in grid components.

Beyond stopping future transactions, the order directs Energy Secretary Chris Wright to evaluate equipment already operating on the grid and to isolate, monitor, or remove pre-existing machinery if it poses an unacceptable security risk. The order directs officials to weigh reliability and safety, the availability of secure replacement equipment, and continuity of essential service before requiring equipment to be isolated, disconnected, replaced, or removed. The Energy Department can also phase in compliance.

The Department of Energy has 120 days to formalize and publish specific implementation rules detailing exactly which suppliers and parts face strict enforcement. The Energy Department is requesting public input on new transformer standards because of national security and supply chain concerns. Recently, the Federal Communications Commission tightened restrictions on some foreign-made robots and power inverters used in solar energy projects.

President Trump is also directing the federal government to reconsider how it purchases energy infrastructure. Within 180 days, the Energy Secretary must recommend changes to federal procurement rules to address national security risks and prioritize U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure. That provision could shift some federal demand from foreign suppliers to domestic manufacturers.

The restrictions focus on components supporting large-scale U.S. electricity infrastructure, including substation transformers, grid-connected inverters, large generators, battery energy storage systems, turbines, industrial control systems, and related software. The ban does not apply to facilities used for local, low-voltage distribution of electric energy. Fox News reports that the provisions could carry financial and operational consequences for the power sector, although the order does not estimate potential costs or identify which equipment or vendors could ultimately be affected.

Inverters are essential components that connect renewable energy facilities and battery storage systems to the power grid by converting direct current (DC) generated by power facilities into alternating current (AC) suitable for grid distribution. They are widely used in solar panels, wind farms, energy storage systems (ESS), and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In solar power installations, inverters account for roughly 10% of total installation costs.

The concern arose last year when U.S. technicians evaluated grid equipment for security issues and found rogue communication devices not listed in product documents in some Chinese solar power inverters. The Trump administration sees these restrictions as necessary because foreign-produced equipment could contain vulnerabilities, including digital backdoors that could provide remote access to critical infrastructure. Further, reliance on foreign suppliers leaves the United States vulnerable to equipment shortages caused by trade disruptions or other supply shocks.

In 2020, then-President Trump issued a directive declaring foreign-supplied grid components an “extraordinary threat to national security” and barring their purchase from entities deemed a risk. President Biden rescinded that directive. The 2020 order did not name specific countries or companies but empowered the Energy Secretary to identify them.

Conclusion

President Trump signed an emergency order that generally bars the U.S. purchase or installation of certain foreign-made bulk-power system electrical equipment and associated software that could pose cybersecurity or operational risks. Europe has recently taken similar actions for the same reasons. Concerns have escalated alongside the increasing deployment of grid-connected equipment, as modern solar inverters, battery-management systems, and other equipment can now generally be monitored and controlled remotely. The issue raises new potential vulnerabilities to cyberattacks and fears that foreign adversaries could exploit weak points in the devices. There is bipartisan concern that Chinese-manufactured components in the U.S. power system could contain vulnerabilities foreign adversaries can exploit. Purchasing that equipment for installation in the U.S. grid could be a serious mistake.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

American Energy Alliance Leads Coalition Letter Urging Congress to Reject California Waivers

WASHINGTON DC (9/4/2026) – Today, a coalition of 25 organizations, led by the American Energy Alliance, sent a letter to members of the United States Congress urging strong support for Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions of disapproval targeting Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted to California.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“Last year, Congress began the work of stopping California from using Clean Air Act waivers as a nationwide regulatory platform. These companion resolutions finish that job. The 2009 greenhouse gas waiver, Advanced Clean Cars I, the small engine rules, and the port and harbor craft mandates all impose California’s political preferences on families, businesses, and supply chains outside of that state.

“The Congressional Review Act exists for agency actions with national economic consequences. Passing these measures would also bar EPA from simply reissuing similar waivers later. Congress, not the California Air Resources Board, should set national policy. We encourage Congress to make these resolutions a priority as they return from August recess.” 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries, please contact:
THOMAS.PYLE@ENERGYDC.ORG

AEA Leads Coalition of 25 Groups Urging Congress to Reject California Waivers

On Friday, September 4, 2026 The American Energy Alliance lead a coalition of 25 other free market advocacy groups, in sending a letter to Congress urging the swift passage of several Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions pertaining to vehicle choice in America. Passing these resolutions would support consumer freedom and the principle that Congress, not a single state’s regulatory board, sets national policy. The full letter and list of signatory organizations is available below.


Dear Members of Congress,

The undersigned organizations write in strong support of Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions of disapproval targeting Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted to California. We urge both the House and Senate to prioritize these companion measures as they return from the August recess.

The resolutions before Congress are:

  • 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (California’s first GHG vehicle waiver): H.J. Res. 202, introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and S.J. Res. 206, introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO).
  • Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) program (criteria pollutant and GHG standards beginning with model year 2015): H.J. Res. 205, introduced by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), and S.J. Res. 207, introduced by Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE).
  • 2022 reinstatement of the ACC I waiver (after an earlier rescission): H.J. Res. 212, introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), and S.J. Res. 208, introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH).
  • Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) standards for lawn and garden equipment and similar engines: H.J. Res. 214, introduced by Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), and S.J. Res. 205, introduced by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). 
  • Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth regulation (shore power or equivalent emission controls for ships at California ports): H.J. Res. 210, introduced by Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA), and S.J. Res. 209, introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK).
  • Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulation (tugs, ferries, and other workboats): S.J. Res. 210, introduced by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH). The House companion bill is H.J Res. 213, introduced by Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA). 

These actions continue the important work Congress began last year when it disapproved the Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and related waivers. California’s special waiver authority under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act was intended to address unique, localized air-quality problems in that state. It was never intended to turn the California Air Resources Board into a de facto national regulator that dictates vehicle design, engine technology, port operations, and consumer choice for the rest of the country.

The 2009 GHG waiver first authorized California to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The ACC I waiver, and its later reinstatement, were built on that foundation and advanced California’s electric-vehicle mandate. The SORE waiver extends the same approach to lawn mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, and other small off-road equipment that millions of American families and small businesses rely on every day. The At-Berth and Commercial Harbor Craft waivers apply the same model to ocean-going ships and harbor vessels serving ports that handle a large share of the nation’s imports. Together, these waivers are the foundation for policies that raise costs, limit choices, and impose California’s policy preferences on Americans nationwide.

Once EPA transmitted these waiver decisions to Congress under the CRA, Congress has the authority to approve or disapprove them. The CRA exists precisely for agency actions with nationwide economic consequences, and these waivers meet that test because they affect the entire motor-vehicle, small-engine, and maritime markets—not merely a single state’s internal enforcement. Passing these House and Senate resolutions would also trigger the CRA’s “substantially the same” prohibition, preventing EPA from simply reissuing similar waivers in a future administration without new congressional authorization. That is a durable, statutory protection for consumer choice and federalism that litigation alone cannot provide.

Support for H.J. Res. 202, 205, 210, 212, 213, and 214 and their Senate companions, including S.J. Res. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210, is a vote for consumer freedom and for the principle that national regulatory policy is set by Congress, not by a single state’s air board.

Sincerely,

Tom Pyle
President
American Energy Alliance

Brent Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity

Phil Kerpen
President
American Commitment

Daren Bakst
Director, Center for Energy and Environment, and Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Jenny Beth Martin
Honorary Chairman
Tea Party Patriots Action

Hon. Jason Isaac
Founder/CEO
American Energy Institute

Daniel C. Turner
Founder & Executive Director
Power The Future

Kristen Walker
Senior Policy Analyst and Manager for Energy and Transportation
American Consumer Institute

Paul Craney
Executive Director
Fiscal Alliance Foundation

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

Myron Ebell
Chairman-elect
American Lands Council (For identification purposes only)

Frank Lasee
President
Truth in Energy and Climate

Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
American Enterprise Institute (For identification purposes only)

Jon Sanders
Director of the Center for Food, Power, & Life
The John Locke Foundation

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

Craig Richardson
President
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute

Kristen A. Ullman
President
Eagle Forum

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

John Droz
Founder
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
President
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Isaac Orr
Vice President of Research
Always On Energy Research

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Joshua Schubert
Energy Policy Analyst
Commonwealth Foundation

Gabriella Hoffman
Director of the Center for Energy and Conservation
Independent Women

China Triples Down On Coal While Still In The Paris Agreement

China is building the world’s only large-scale coal-to-gas industry as a buffer against supply shocks and to supplement its national security. China’s 15th Five-Year Plan, covering 2026 to 2030, moves coal-to-gas’ role into active implementation. Rystad Energy estimates China’s coal-to-gas capacity is on track to reach 9.4 billion cubic meters per year by end-2026, growing to 28 billion cubic meters per year by 2030 — a tripling. Cheap mine-mouth coal in Xinjiang is producing gas for $9.1 to $9.6 per million Btu, generally undercutting China’s average LNG import price. Mine-mouth coal prices in China’s Xinjiang province averaged 214 yuan, or $30 per metric ton, between April 2025 and May 2026, less than 40% of the equivalent price in Inner Mongolia. Existing plants are operating at over 90% utilization, indicating the cost competitiveness of domestic synthetic gas versus imported alternatives. China is currently developing about 20 billion cubic meters per year of coal-to-gas capacity, much of it in Xinjiang, and project approval times in the region are dropping from three years or more to under 12 months in several recent cases. China clearly means business when it comes to increasing the coal gasification industry.

Source: Oil Price

Lacking the oil and gas reserves of countries like the United States and Russia, China is converting its vast coal reserves into synthetic gas as a national security and economic hedge. China’s using its cheap coal to produce gas that costs less than buying LNG from abroad, as LNG prices have spiked due to the conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted global gas supplies. At 28 billion cubic meters per year, however, China’s coal-to-gas industry would supplement LNG rather than replace LNG imports, which fell 14% in 2025, slowing the pace of China’s LNG demand growth.

In 2025, China imported 39% of its natural gas supply (168.6 billion cubic meters), slightly lower than 2024 at 43%, due to a 6% increase in domestic production, totaling 264.1 billion cubic meters. China imported 90.8 billion cubic meters of LNG in 2025, with 29.4% coming from Qatar. Because Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, those imports essentially stopped during the conflict.  Other major LNG suppliers to China are Australia, Russia, and Malaysia. With Qatar’s LNG exports cut off, the LNG spot price in Asian markets spiked to over $20 per million Btu, confirming China’s expectations that LNG import dependency is a strategic vulnerability. China’s pipeline gas imports in 2025 were less than its LNG imports at 77.8 billion cubic meters, coming mainly from Russia and Turkmenistan, which together provided 86% of its pipeline gas imports.

China is the world’s largest coal producer and consumer by a wide margin. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, coal accounted for 57% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2025. Domestic coal production reached approximately 4.7 billion metric tons (1.7% higher than in 2024)—a new record. Nonetheless, China also imported coal, mainly from Indonesia, Mongolia, Russia and Australia. China’s coal mining is slated to expand by an additional 25% by 2030.

Besides coal-to-gas conversion, China’s 5-year plan expects growth in all areas of natural gas imports, including pipeline gas and LNG imports. China’s current LNG receiving capacity is about 130 to 157 million metric tons per year, spread across more than 30 operational receiving and regasification terminals, and it plans to expand it to 200 million metric tons per year by 2030. The country also plans to increase the import capacity of its onshore natural gas pipelines to 114 billion cubic meters annually by 2030. To strengthen energy distribution, it plans to build 20,000 kilometers of long-distance oil and gas pipelines by 2030, increasing the nation’s total long-distance pipeline network to 220,000 kilometers and significantly enhancing domestic supply chain resilience. Natural gas storage capacity will also expand, accounting for more than 13% of the country’s total natural gas consumption by 2030.

Because China is the world’s largest importer of oil and LNG, it is concerned about energy supply security due to the risk of a maritime blockade of its energy imports, supporting its decision to increase domestic production and coal conversion projects. Coal-to-gas projects, however, emit nearly three times as much carbon dioxide during conversion as is released when the gas is burned, which is the main reason China is behind on its 2025 carbon intensity target. Because China prioritizes energy security over carbon dioxide emissions growth, the conversion sector is likely to continue to grow, and its industrial sector will have the energy it needs to prosper, unlike countries in Europe.

Conclusion

China is expected to triple its coal-to-gas conversion from 2026 to 2030, reaching 28 billion cubic meters for national security and economic reasons. At that level, China’s coal-to-gas industry would be a supplement to LNG rather than a replacement for LNG imports, but its growth could slow the pace of Chinese LNG demand growth. China currently has about 20 billion cubic meters per year of coal-to-gas capacity under development, much of it in Xinjiang, where coal is cheap. Mine-mouth coal prices in China’s Xinjiang province average around $30 per metric ton, less than 40% of the equivalent price in Inner Mongolia. China’s 5-year plan not only supports increased coal-to-gas conversion, but also increased infrastructure for pipeline gas and LNG imports.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.