Governor Sherrill Can’t Mandate Her Way To Lower Electricity Prices

New Jersey’s governor, Mikie Sherrill, declared a formal emergency over rising electric bills and ordered regulators to intervene in rate hikes, using the Disaster Control Act. Sherrill directed regulators to stop electric rate increases, effectively freezing rate hikes that were to go into effect in the coming months. She also warned that, without structural changes, nuclear power and other long‑term investments into renewable energy and battery storage will be needed to stabilize prices. As reported by Morning Overview, her directive orders the state Board of Public Utilities to create “Residential Universal Bill Credits” that would appear directly on household statements to offset rising charges. Her Executive Order No. 1 program is tasked with subsidizing residential customers while her administration works on deeper reforms, meaning the bill credits are intended to be a bridge to a longer-term policy. Former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy took similar action last year, but that did not fix the rising electricity price problem.

New Jersey has the 12th-highest residential electricity prices in the country at 22.55 cents per kilowatt hour as of October 2025, 25% higher than the national average at 17.98 cents per kilowatt hour. Currently, natural gas and nuclear generate the bulk of the state’s electricity, with nuclear producing 45% and natural gas 49%; renewables are at 4%. While traditional baseload technologies are providing 94% of the state’s electricity, the policies of New Jersey Governor Murphy over the past eight years and now Governor Sherrill are making electricity prices rise.

Source: NJ.com

New Jersey is a founding member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap and tax program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in electricity generation by forcing utility generators to buy allowances for the carbon dioxide emissions they release over a predetermined amount set by its ten regional members. The cost of the allowances is added to the electricity bills that consumers pay. Pennsylvania recently withdrew from the pact while Virginia rejoined under new Governor Spanberger.

New Jersey also has a renewable portfolio standard that requires it to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 — a bill signed by Governor Phil Murphy in 2018. In promoting renewable energy, he advocated for offshore wind facilities — a very expensive generating technology since it requires developers to mount the wind turbines in rough ocean waters, run extensive cables underground to bring the power to the coast, and maintain the turbines in turbulent ocean waters, which makes their operating and maintenance costs almost five times that of onshore wind. Besides its direct costs, it requires back-up power via a dispatchable technology such as natural gas, nuclear, or coal,when the wind is not blowing, which adds to the cost consumers pay. On top of that, New Jersey has less spare dispatchable capacity as it shut down its last coal plant in 2022, under the policies of Governor Murphy. It is unfortunate that Governor Sherrill is planning on using those same policies.

During Winter Storm Fern, coal was used by many states to keep the lights on and residents warm. In the week ending January 25, 2026, coal-fired electricity generation in the Lower 48 states increased 31% from the previous week, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Coal accounted for 21% of all electricity generation in the Lower 48 states over that period, up from 17% the previous week. It was the second-largest source of energy used for electricity, following natural gas, which contributed 38%, and nuclear, which was third at 18%.

However, New Jersey no longer has that option after it shuttered five coal-fired power plants and one nuclear plant since 2017 under Governor Murphy’s term in office — a combined loss of more than 2,500 megawatts of firm generating capacity. That left the state grappling with dwindling in-state generation capacity and increasing reliance on imported electricity. Governor Phil Murphy thought he could deliver “reliable and affordable green energy alternatives,” which, frankly, do not exist. New Jersey’s hopes for a transition to “green” energy outpaced its replacement infrastructure, raising concerns about grid stability, cost volatility, and energy independence.

As the Shore News Network explains, with no new large-scale generating stations coming online to replace the decommissioned plants, New Jersey turned increasingly to electricity imports from neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania, which resulted in a strain on regional transmission systems and greater exposure to external market forces. The state was warned that the result could be higher utility bills, grid reliability concerns, and a lag in meeting renewable energy targets — all of which have occurred.

NJ.com reports that officials from the PJM interconnection indicated that, while demand has been increasing, New Jersey’s existing supply has left the system due primarily to state policy and federal rules from previous administrations. According to PJM, “The bottom line…is that these affordability concerns are being driven by an imbalance in electricity supply and demand. PJM wholesale power markets are sending a price signal that reflects this imbalance, which is caused by electricity supply not being constructed at a pace to keep up with increases in electricity demand, mainly driven by data center buildout. This issue is acutely problematic in New Jersey because it imports about 40% of its power from out of state.”

Governor Sherrill blames PJM’s capacity market on rising prices because capacity prices in auction markets run by PJM soared over 800% in 2024, according to her executive order. She ignores that the policies of the state to remove firm capacity are causing the problem of rising electricity prices for her state and higher prices for PJM’s capacity auction as well. And while neighboring Pennsylvania withdrew from RGGI, New Jersey remained, adding costs to electricity bills.

Analysis

Under Governor Sherrill’s policies, people and businesses in New Jersey should expect higher prices. Taxing carbon dioxide emissions through RGGI and forcing “green” energy sources onto the grid through a Renewable Portfolio Standard and subsidized offshore wind lead to higher energy prices by directing investment away from energy sources that are cheap and reliable. As IER’s Alex Stevens explains for the New York Post, “Prices are the sharpest signal that markets send, and it’s really the only way that so many people engaging in an economy can coordinate supply and demand. If you impose price controls or ceilings, you basically blind everybody from the information about where supply needs to increase.”


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

Whose Policies Are Increasing Electricity Rates? 

E&E News reported recently that Senate Democrats gathered to “reinforce a core midterm message: Republican policies have driven up energy prices for Americans.” Before Democrats cast blame for electricity prices, they need to look in the mirror.  

The Map That Tells the Story

Recently, along with Always On Energy Research, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) released a report called “Blue States, High Rates” that tells the real story of the electricity prices in the United States:  

What’s striking about the map is that if you didn’t know what you were looking at, you might assume it was a map of how states voted in the 2024 presidential election. It’s not—it’s a map of electricity prices.

The correlation is unmistakable: The vast majority of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for the Democratic nominee in both 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile, 8 of the ten states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red.

But here’s what Democratic Senators need to understand: this isn’t a map of politics. It’s a map of policy consequences. The correlation exists not because of how people vote, but because of what elected officials do once in office. And Democrats in office consistently enact policies that intentionally increase the price of electricity.  

The Numbers Don’t Lie

From 2014 to 2024, electricity rates in blue states increased by 32.4%. In red states, they increased by 18.5%. That’s a difference of nearly 14 percentage points. 

The pattern holds across multiple policy categories:

  • States with mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards saw rates increase 28.8%, compared to just 17.0% in states without such mandates—a difference of nearly 12 percentage points.
  • States with 100% net-zero targets experienced rate increases of 31.2%, versus 20.9% in states without such targets.
  • RGGI member states saw rates climb 33.8%, compared to 21.3% in non-RGGI states.

Democrats’ Real Priorities

These price increases are not coincidences. Democrats have policy priorities other than electricity affordability. They want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They want to promote renewable energy. They want to electrify transportation and buildings.

People can debate the validity of these policy goals, but what’s not debatable is that these policies raise electricity costs. That’s not a bug—it’s a feature. Carbon pricing,  carbon dioxide taxes, renewable mandates, and renewable energy standards are designed to make conventional electricity more expensive relative to preferred alternatives.

The problem for Democrats is that they want credit for caring about affordability while implementing policies that do the exact opposite.

Consider Governor Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, who announced shortly after taking office that she wanted the commonwealth to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The entire purpose of RGGI is to tax carbon dioxide emissions, which means intentionally increasing the cost of electricity from natural gas and coal generation. RGGI states have seen electricity prices rise 12.5 percentage points faster than non-RGGI states.

If your central goal is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that’s a defensible policy. But you cannot simultaneously claim that electricity affordability is your priority.

The “Cheap Clean Power” Fantasy

Politico, writing about the same meeting of Senate Democrats, notes that Senator Schatz (D-Hawaii) “called for advocating for cheap clean power that allows Democrats to ‘keep it extremely simple as it relates to the affordability question.’” The problem is when Democrats try to require “cheap clean power” the power turns out to be anything but cheap. 

California, which wants to lead the nation in renewable energy deployment, has electricity rates that are double the national average. Rates increased 78% from 2014 to 2024, the highest increase in the country.

Massachusetts, with its aggressive clean energy mandates, saw rates climb 56%. Maine, another RGGI state with aggressive renewable policies, experienced a 55% increase.

Meanwhile, states that prioritized affordability over climate mandates tell a different story. Texas, with its market-oriented approach, saw rates increase just 9.5%. Louisiana, relying heavily on natural gas without aggressive mandates, saw increases of less than 9%. North Dakota actually saw rates decline by nearly 6%.

What Republicans Have Achieved

Ranking Member Heinrich suggested Democrats should message around “how the Trump administration’s policies are impacting electric bills.” But the data shows that Republican-led states have consistently delivered better affordability outcomes.

This isn’t complicated. States that have:

  • Avoided mandatory renewable portfolio standards
  • Rejected carbon pricing schemes like RGGI
  • Allowed utilities to use the most cost-effective generation sources
  • Maintained diverse fuel portfolios, including natural gas and coal

…have delivered lower electricity prices and smaller rate increases than states that pursued aggressive climate policies.

Florida, under continuous Republican governance since 1999, only saw prices rise prices 16% from 2014 to 2024, less than the average increase of 24.5%, despite near-universal air conditioning demand and the challenges of mitigating frequent hurricane damage. Kentucky has the lowest rates of any state east of the Mississippi. Louisiana enjoys the third-lowest rates in the nation.

The Real Choice

At the meeting of Senate Democrats reported on by E&E News and Politico, Senator Schatz stated he wants to start discussions around “what-would-we-do-if-we-were-in-charge” policies. State governments play a significant role in electricity policy, and we already know what Democrats do when they’re in charge. We can see it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and many other blue states, where electricity has become dramatically more expensive.

If Democrats truly want to “keep it extremely simple as it relates to the affordability question,” the answer is straightforward: stop implementing policies that intentionally increase the price of electricity.

You cannot have carbon dioxide taxes, mandatory renewable standards, 100% renewable energy targets, and aggressive restrictions on natural gas and coal while also claiming to prioritize affordability. The data from 50 states and a decade of policy decisions and price changes make this abundantly clear.

Americans struggling with their electric bills don’t need new messaging strategies. They need state and federal leaders willing to prioritize affordability over ideological mandates. Until Democrats are willing to do that, the map of electricity prices will continue to look like a map of election results—and for good reason.

Coalition to Secretary Wright: Senate Carbon Tax Crowd Wants You to Help Them Implement New Energy Taxes

WASHINGTON DC (2/2/26) – Today, a coalition of 37 organizations, led by the American Energy Alliance and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, sent a letter to Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, alerting him to language surreptitiously included in a report attached to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, which requests that the Department lay the groundwork for a national energy tax. 

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“Behind closed doors, and without any transparency, a small group of Republican House and Senate members used a legislative sleight of hand to set the wheels in motion for a carbon dioxide tax on American families. Though the language is not enshrined in law, the proponents, including Senators Kevin Cramer and Bill Cassidy, have already indicated that they will use the report language to try to force the Trump administration to build a case for eventually establishing the tax.

“Today, we joined with 37 like-minded organizations to alert Secretary Wright to this agenda. The Trump administration has been very vocal and consistent in its prioritization of American energy security and affordability; the language that these Senators slipped into the committee report only hinders that agenda. The simple fact is that an energy tax based on carbon dioxide will be regressive and harm American families, businesses, workers, the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and first responders.

“No logical-thinking person can be in favor of such a thing.  

“Some in Washington seem eager to quietly set the stage for a carbon dioxide tax without ever having to take accountability by casting their vote to raise energy prices on their constituents. That’s unfortunate, but not surprising. The Secretary should know he has a stable of supporters ready to push back against this backdoor provision and develop a proper response.”

Background:

The recently enacted minibus appropriations package includes report language reflecting elements of the PROVE IT Act. The PROVE IT Act was originally a standalone bill in the 118th Congress that stalled due to conservative opposition as AEA, with several other organizations, argued it would lay the groundwork for carbon taxes or border adjustments. 

Specifically, the report language instructs the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to conduct a study comparing U.S. emissions intensity for certain goods to those from other countries, specifically mirroring items covered by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. While presented as a mere study, this lays critical groundwork for a potential U.S. carbon tax. 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #261: Welcome to Veganuary

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the impacts of the recent winter storm on America’s electric grid, the future of renewables and electric vehicles, and the latest updates from the Trump Administration.

Links:

Washington State Wildly Mischaracterizes Outcomes Of Costly Green Mandates

The Washington State Climate Commitment Act (CCA) was supposed to reduce 8.6 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime. However, due to a clerical error, the state corrected the estimate to 308,000 tons of emissions, or less than 4% of the original number, and less than one-half of 1% of the state’s annual emissions. The CCA, passed in 2021, raised more than $4.3 billion to support programs that ostensibly reduce the state’s carbon emissions. The act requires businesses that emit greenhouse gases to buy credits to offset the emissions they generate. The data is compiled from more than 3,600 projects from 37 agenciesThe Seattle Times reports that the error occurred in the calculation of emissions from eight rebate projects to help electrify homes, purchase new appliances, and assist low-income communities. Those eight projects were originally expected to cut emissions by 7.5 million tons. Corrected data show the new emission reduction figure to be 78,000 tons, just over 1% of the earlier projection, and raise questions about the veracity of the state’s data.

Source: Unleash Prosperity

The Washington Policy Center caught the error. A report issued by Washington State said that it costs $40 to reduce one metric ton of carbon dioxide, whereas the state’s previous report had said that the cost was $1,400. This discrepancy caused the Center to investigate, where they found the eight projects with the accounting error. According to Todd Myers, vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center, the majority of projects funded by the carbon auctions were “simply irresponsible,” costing several times more than the benefits they provide.

The Climate Commitment Act

Washington’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050. To help reach that goal, in 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed the CCA, which requires the state’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases to purchase allowances for the emissions they release. The CCA caps the amount of emissions that entities can emit and requires them to purchase credits if they surpass that threshold. Governor Inslee stated the Act would only add pennies to the price of gas at the pump, but it ultimately added 40 to 60 cents per gallon. The CCA also drove natural gas and electricity prices higher, with monthly energy bills escalating by 15-30%.

Funds from the CCA are so lucrative that state politicians want to use them to support other non-climate endeavors, such as lowering families’ sales tax payments and schools’ utility bills. Where the money goes has been a subject of debate. The 2024 state ballot had an option to recall the policy entirely, but it failed.

Other Fees

Washington State, like California, has a number of added fees that bring up the cost of energy — all in the name of combating climate change, which they believe means getting rid of fossil fuels. The Clean Fuel Standard (CFS) is a mandate on fuel suppliers to blend lower-carbon fuels or buy credits. It is estimated to add an additional 19-cents per gallon by 2031 to gasoline prices and possibly raise diesel prices even more, fees that add to the cost of trucking, agriculture, manufacturing, and everyday goods that consumers must pay.

The state’s gas tax recently increased by six cents and is the third-highest gas tax in the nation at 59 cents per gallon. The diesel tax increased by 12 cents. Families living in rural areas where there is no or limited public transit are affected more because they require transportation for every errand.

Combined, these fees — the CCA, CFS, and gas tax — add nearly $1 per gallon to the cost of gasoline. Washington State’s gasoline price ranks third highest in the nation after Hawaii and California at $3.79 per gallon, 33% higher than the national average.

Analysis

Whether due to deception or incompetence, Washington drastically overestimated the emissions-reducing effects of the CCA. However, the climate change effects of the program and the state’s other taxes and mandates are of little concern to the state’s politicians compared to their contributions to state revenues. With more money in the state budget, they can use the program as a method for funding politically favored social programs. If Washington really wants to reduce emissions, it could pursue new natural gas generation, which has played the largest role in emissions reductions across the country.


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

Gov. Spanberger Moves to Increase Electricity Prices With Plans to Rejoin RGGI

WASHINGTON DC (1/28/26) – Last week, Governor Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), who ran a campaign based on affordability, including lower energy bills, announced that Virginia would be rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and thus imposing a new tax on residents. The RGGI is a regional cap-and-trade program in the Northeast that requires power plants to buy “allowances” to emit carbon dioxide. These allowance costs are naturally passed on to the consumer, inevitably raising electricity prices.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“In December, we released a report giving an in-depth look at electricity prices. The data are clear: energy affordability is a policy problem, and blue states that pursue aggressive climate policies pay more. With her RGGI announcement this week, unfortunately, Gov. Spanberger is about to prove what we already know to be true.

“Cap-and-trade is just another name for a consumer tax, plain and simple. It affects not only energy affordability but also the reliability of the grid, as it makes adding and retaining baseload generation more difficult. With rising electricity bills, the importance of an affordable and reliable power grid should be Gov. Spanberger’s main focus. Instead, she remains fixated on pushing pointless, costly policies that Americans have repeatedly rejected.

“It is disappointing that any governor sees the RGGI as a path forward for their state, especially now when affordability is top of mind for all Americans. At the end of the day, the promotion of climate idealism may sound nice, but it does nothing to actually help American families pay their utility bills, and it does little for the environment.” 

Gov. Spanberger’s predecessor, Gov. Glenn Youngkin, had pulled Virginia out of RGGI. According to former Gov. Youngkin, from the time Virginia originally joined RGGI to the time they left, residents paid $828 million in a regressive interstate tax applied to their power bills.  

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

AEA Signs Coalition Letter In Support of Administrator Zeldin

On January 22, 2026, the American Energy Alliance joined with 19 other free-market and consumer choice advocacy organizations in sending a EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, commending him for his stalwart leadership of the agency in 2025. The full text of the letter is available below. The full list of signers is available here.


Dear Administrator Zeldin:

The undersigned conservative organizations want to commend you for your leadership in 2025 and look forward to working with you in 2026.

In your first year, you faced an incredible challenge to undo the damage from the previous administration. You have been successful in making this happen while simultaneously advancing a proactive agenda that recognizes environmental protection doesn’t require ignoring the rule of law or sound science.

A significant amount of attention has rightly been paid to the EPA’s decision to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding. You didn’t back down from the scare tactics and handwringing from climate extremists over revisiting the flawed 2009 finding. Instead, the agency proposed a detailed rule outlining the problems with the endangerment finding. It also made an overwhelming case based on numerous legal arguments as to why the EPA doesn’t have statutory authority to promulgate greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles.

Your strong leadership goes well beyond the work on the endangerment finding. You led the fight against the Inflation Reduction Act’s abuse of taxpayer dollars, such as through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In March 2025, you announced 31 deregulatory actions in what you called “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” This was not some mere announcement but a clear blueprint detailing what to expect from the agency. And you are delivering on this ambitious agenda.

The use of sound science is critical across the federal government, especially at the EPA. President Donald Trump has demonstrated his commitment to sound science through his May 2025 executive order “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” The executive order also demonstrates a commitment to properly consider risk. The executive order states “Highly unlikely and overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios should only be relied upon in agency decision-making where required by law or otherwise pertinent to the agency’s action.”

You have also demonstrated this commitment to sound science and proper risk assessment on issues ranging from Clean Air Act regulation to pesticide regulation. In the past, one of the biggest problems at the EPA has been statutory overreach. Another major problem though has been the agency’s use of junk science, unreasonable risk assessments, and the lack of transparency. The EPA under your leadership appears to recognize this problem.

Imposing an air standard that can have severe economic effects or not approving a chemical that can improve the day-to-day lives of Americans can hurt Americans, drive up prices, and restrict freedom. Therefore, it is critical that such an action is only taken when gold standard science has been the foundation of that action.

As we look back though on what you have accomplished, we want you to know that you have exceeded any reasonable expectations we could have had for a strong EPA administrator.

Please also know that we are available to help make 2026 at the EPA even better than 2025.

Sincerely,

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

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Amy Oliver Cooke
President and Chairman of the Board
Always On Energy Research

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Phil Kerpin
President
American Commitment

Tom Pyle
President
American Energy Alliance

Hon. Jason Isaac
CEO
American Energy Institute

Brent Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity

Margaret Byfield
Executive Director
American Stewards of Liberty

Craig Rucker
President
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

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

Craig Richardson
President
Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal)

Cameron Sholty
Executive Director
Heartland Impact

James Taylor
President
The Heartland Institute

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng.
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition

Annette Olson
Chief Executive Officer
The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, Inc.

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH
President
Scientific Integrity Institute

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Frank Lasee
President
Truth in Energy and Climate

The Unregulated Podcast #260: Escape from Virginia

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna review new proposals for the U.S. electric grid and the future of American electric vehicles. Later in the show they are joined by Alvin Lui, president of Courage Is a Habit, for a discussion of his new report on the indoctrination of critical theory in K-12 education across America.

Links:

U.S. House Votes to Advance Responsible American Mining

WASHINGTON DC (1/22/26) – Yesterday, the U.S. House passed H.J.Res. 140, a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that would reverse the Biden administration’s mining ban in Minnesota. H.J. Res.140 was introduced by Congressman Pete Stauber of Minnesota. Earlier this month, AEA joined a coalition in urging Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Scalise to ensure prompt passage of this resolution. The vote was also included in our American Energy Scorecard.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“As we pointed out recently in our 2026 Environmental Quality Index, when we restrict American resource development, we shift production to nations with lower environmental standards and questionable human rights records. We applaud Congressman Stauber for his leadership on this issue. The House vote paves the way for responsible mineral development in Minnesota and establishes an important precedent that public land withdrawals issued through public land orders be subject to congressional review.

“By locking up public lands, revoking and restricting leases, and piling on regulatory roadblocks, the Biden administration closed off American mining, denying Americans the opportunity to produce the minerals we need to power our nation and economy. With this Resolution, we can stand in support of American competitiveness, good-paying jobs, and our national energy security.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Key Vote YES on H.J. Res. 140

The American Energy Alliance supports H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval of the BLM public land order prohibiting mining in the Superior National Forest.

The subject region contains one of the world’s largest untapped copper and nickel deposits, two minerals that are crucial inputs to vast numbers of modern products. These are also minerals for which the U.S. relies heavily on imports. The Biden administration’s action to lock out development from this important mining opportunity undermined national security and economic development in order to pander to extreme environmentalists. Congress should support the reversal of this destructive and unnecessary administrative action.

Last week, AEA joined with Pacific Legal Foundation and others in sending a coalition letter to House leadership urging the prompt consideration of this important legislation.

A YES vote on H.J. Res. 140 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.