Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

Gavin Newsom Blames Data Centers For Electricity Prices He Helped Hike

October 5, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On September 21, Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills regulating the data center industry in California, imposing new ​requirements on electricity costs, water use, and local oversight. The legislation requires data centers to provide information on electricity use, water consumption, land use, and workforce needs, giving local communities more information to assess proposed projects. The legislation also requires data centers to comply with the state’s energy procurement requirements and to bring new clean-energy supplies onto the grid. Proponents argue the measures will prevent the cost of new power generation and grid upgrades ⁠needed for data centers from being shifted onto other ratepayers. Newsom reversed his views on regulating data centers. Last year, Newsom vetoed legislation requiring data centers to report water use and said he supported them.

Among the legislation Newsom signed were Senate Bill 886 and Assembly Bill 2383, which establish special rules for data centers’ electrical use. The law orders the California Public Utilities Commission to create special requirements and rates for data centers’ electricity use, including costs for new power and infrastructure upgrades. According to Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, “Collectively these measures protect ratepayers from subsidizing the significant energy consumption of data centers, ensuring that the data centers pay upfront for the extra infrastructure that must be built to operate them, and pay their fair share for wildfire mitigation and other ratepayer-funded programs.”

Another bill, AB 1577, requires data centers to report their energy usage and efficiency information to the California Energy Commission for annual publication in public reports. Two other bills require oversight of data center water consumption, with one requiring data center operators, when applying for a business license or permit, to disclose an estimate of their water use and the expected source of water. The other bars cities and counties from approving a new or expanded data center unless the developer submits a water assessment and a water scarcity plan, and requires developers to cover the cost of any necessary water system upgrade.

Despite the bills’ passage, “clean energy” and environmental groups promised more legislation in the future.  Arnab Pal, the executive director of Deploy Action, a nonprofit that promotes clean energy, told CalMatters, “I don’t think these bills are the end of this fight; I think we’re gonna have to do a lot of implementation on the back end and, as other states roll out their policies next year, I think California is going to look back and be like, ‘maybe we should have done more,’” Pal said. “I’m interested to see what we do next year on this.”

The Data Center Coalition, which opposed the bills, indicated that the legislation would make California a more challenging place to develop the facilities. The industry ⁠trade group said its members were committed to responsible development but warned the measures could push projects to other states: “Legislation such ​as these create significant uncertainty and introduce potentially duplicative ​requirements that ⁠make doing business in California an unattractive proposition for data centers and other industries,” Khara Boender, a director of government affairs for the group, said in ⁠a statement. “These ​are likely to further limit data center ​development in California — an already declining market—which pushes job creation, clean energy deployment, and tax revenue ​to neighboring states.”

Data centers in California are typically smaller than the AI facilities in other parts of the country. Most are under 100 megawatts because of California’s high electricity costs and state regulations on gas-powered generators. Data center electricity use is currently at 2% of the state’s demand but is expected to double in the next 10 years. A Public Policy Institute of California poll in July showed that 73% of California residents oppose building data centers in their communities.

In June, Monterey Park became the first city in the country to permanently ban data centers by a popular vote. At least four other San Gabriel Valley cities have enacted moratoriums, and L.A. County instituted a moratorium for unincorporated areas. Imperial County, Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs also passed moratoriums, and Coachella permanently banned the facilities. In the Central Valley, Tulare County adopted a moratorium as residents voiced opposition to proposals to develop tiny data centers on local fairgrounds in the region. Fresno City Council is moving forward with a ban, and San Joaquin County is weighing one. In the Bay Area, San Francisco supervisors introduced a proposal to block data centers for 45 days while the city creates new codes. Oakland is considering a moratorium, and Richmond recently voted to approve one.

The vast majority of California’s data centers are in Santa Clara and San José, where leaders continue to court development despite resident backlash. Santa Clara is California’s data center capital–home to 60 data centers–more than any other city on the West Coast.  Inexpensive electricity sold by the city’s own power company has attracted major tech firms and data center developers, saving millions of dollars over PG&E rates. The city and its planners have also made it easier for developers by providing guidance and approvals, largely handled by the city’s planning commission.

San José, with 20 operating data centers, has been actively courting data center development to boost property and utility tax revenue. The projects require a special use permit, which must be approved at a public hearing. Last summer, San José Mayor Matt Mahan announced a deal with PG&E that would guarantee power availability and quick connections for 10 major projects in the coming years. The city provided “concierge-style support” for data center developers, leading to a near doubling of interest in data center development earlier this year. For example, Google is proposing to demolish an existing warehouse and build research and development facilities expected to draw about 250 megawatts of power. Microsoft is building a 99-megawatt data center with 224 natural gas generators to provide continuous power during outages or when the grid is overloaded.

Opposition to data centers is fueled by misinformation, much of it spread by China, which is racing the United States to lead the industry America needs to win for national security reasons. Beyond providing tax revenues towns and cities need, data centers support services Americans use daily, including Instagram and Waze, streaming movies, online banking, hailing an Uber, and conversing with A.I. chatbots, among many other future uses that could open frontiers in defense and medicine. Job opportunities abound around data centers not only for development but for upgrades, expansions, reconfigurations, and maintenance as technology evolves, creating steady, local, long-term employment.

California is not the only state to restrict data center development. New York has a one-year moratorium while it develops standards for their development. In Texas, Governor Abbot has required an audit of all current plans that seek ownership, financial, water, and community-impact information before granting grid access. In Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro rolled out strict permit rules that would ensure data centers pay for their own energy; minimize noise, air pollution, and water use; hire locally; and sign local community benefit agreements.

Conclusion

California has seven new pieces of legislation regulating data centers, signed by Governor Newsom, who has reversed his stance on data center development. The measures purportedly prevent the cost of new power generation and grid upgrades ⁠needed for data centers from being shifted onto other ratepayers but are likely to shift data center development to other states which see the benefits in their development. Data centers provide tax revenue and numerous job opportunities, and they also provide Americans with many services they use daily.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

New York Democrats Rob Ratepayers For Election Year Bribe

October 2, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On September 14, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the state will begin mailing energy rebate checks of up to $200 to 8.2 million households on September 21, with deliveries continuing through December. The checks come from a one-time $1 billion Protecting Our Wallets Energy Rebate, or POWER, included in the state’s enacted fiscal year 2027 budget. She hopes to ease the pain of high energy bills in New York, which her administration contributed to with its “green” policies. Since Hochul became governor, the New York Post reports that Con Edison’s bills have risen 27% and New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) bills have risen 46%.

Source: New York Post

Hochul’s opponent for governor this November, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, is offering to make energy resources within the state more accessible by allowing hydraulic fracturing that neighboring Pennsylvania allows and rolling back New York’s green initiatives that are supporting very expensive offshore wind power and solar power, both intermittent sources that need expensive batteries or other generating capacity as backup. According to Blakeman, “The Marcellus Shale holds more than 9 trillion cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas, but Kathy Hochul’s fracking ban keeps that prosperity locked in the ground.” “As Governor, I will bring fracking back to New York, unleash our energy economy while protecting the environment, and cut utility bills in half.” According to Blakeman, Pennsylvania’s use of natural gas saved families nearly $9 billion on energy bills last year.

Under NY’s rebate, joint filers with incomes under $150,000 will receive $200, and joint filers with incomes between $150,000 and $300,000 will receive $150. Single filers with incomes under $150,000 will receive $100. Eligibility for the rebate is determined from 2024 tax returns. To qualify, a taxpayer must have filed a New York State resident income tax return, been a full-time state resident, reported income within the qualifying thresholds, and not been claimed as a dependent on another return. The mailing begins seven weeks before Hochul faces her Republican challenger in the November 3rd election. It is the second consecutive year that the state has funded the program and sent rebate checks to taxpayers in the fall. Last year’s inflation refund checks, worth up to $400, went to the same number of NY households beginning on September 26, 2025.

Hochul admits that the rebate would not resolve the underlying cause of high energy prices. She attributes higher fuel costs to the war in Iran and federal tariffs, not the state’s anti-fossil fuel policies under her leadership, which have led to one of the highest electricity bills in the nation. According to the Energy Information Administration, New York’s average residential electricity price is 60% higher than the national average and 95% higher than Florida’s average price—a state where many New Yorkers have migrated. According to yearly average billing data from Con Edison and NYSEG, Hochul has presided over larger rate increases compared with her predecessor, former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Instead, Hochul focuses on the Iran conflict, saying, “The gas price is going up since Donald Trump started the war with Iran.” The average price of a gallon is $4.35, and I hope to God you don’t need diesel because that’s upwards of $6 as well, the highest in history. And this is what I’d call an unforced error.”

It is true the gas and diesel prices have escalated due to the Iran conflict, but they are expected to drop once a deal is reached that President Trump expects after the mid-term election. According to AAA, on September 16, the national average for regular gasoline was $4.36 per gallon—up 14 cents from a week earlier and up from $3.18 a year ago—with New York averaging $4.42 per gallon. AAA listed diesel at $6.31 a gallon on average. The previous record for regular gasoline, $5.02, was set in June 2022.

On September 15, Hochul announced another utility program that she described as continuous rather than one-time. The utility bill discount program could benefit 2.5 million eligible NY households. The State’s Energy Affordability Program offers qualifying residents discounts of up to $500 annually on their utility bills. According to the governor, eligibility expanded earlier this year to include anyone earning below the state or area’s median income. Of course, the program would not be necessary if NY residents were offered the electric rates that states without net-zero carbon policies pay, such as Florida. New York stands out for high prices because it has significant natural gas resources that it deliberately refuses to develop as a matter of state policy.

On July 14, Hochul issued the nation’s first statewide moratorium on large data centers, those of 50 megawatts or more, imposing up to a one-year moratorium over concerns that the data facilities are raising power costs, straining water ‌supplies and burdening local communities. According to Hochul, data centers that come to the state after the moratorium ends would have to generate their own power, pay into a statewide fund supporting transmission infrastructure, and show that local ratepayers’ bills were going down. Although some argue electricity prices are rising because of data centers, an IER study shows this is not the case, pointing instead to state energy and climate policies as the cause of rising rates. It also shows that states with growing electricity demand saw smaller increases in electricity rates.

The Epoch Times reports that the NY fiscal year 2027 budget that created the energy rebate program also created a Ratepayer Protection Plan and a RATES Commission. Utilities requesting a rate increase must show that capital projects are necessary and present a budget-constrained option that keeps operating costs below inflation. Under the plan, regulators get 14 months to examine rate requests. Utilities are barred from passing lobbying, public relations campaigns, political donations, and luxury travel costs to ratepayers, and utility executives’ salaries will be benchmarked to affordability goals set by the Public Service Commission. The RATES Commission is tasked with examining the causes of rising utility bills, utility profits, and energy market design.

Conclusion

New York Governor Hochul is giving eligible NY residents a one-time energy rebate of up to $200 to help pay for rising energy bills. This program is in addition to the State’s Energy Affordability Program that offers qualifying residents discounts of up to $500 annually on their utility bills. New York’s residential electricity prices are among the highest in the nation, 60% higher than the national average and 95% higher than Florida’s average residential prices, where many New Yorkers have migrated. Hochul admits that the rebate would not resolve the underlying causes of high energy prices. She attributes higher fuel costs to the war in Iran and to federal tariffs, rather than the state’s anti-fossil fuel policies under her leadership and her preference for expensive offshore wind power and solar power, both intermittent sources that require backup from expensive batteries or dispatchable capacity such as natural gas-powered generation. Hochul’s opponent, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, is offering to make energy resources within the state more accessible by allowing hydraulic fracturing, which neighboring state Pennsylvania allows, and rolling back New York’s green initiatives.

2026.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Communist China Copies Biden’s Homework With Their Own EV Mandate

October 1, 2026 by Leave a Comment

China released the “Intelligent Connected New Energy Vehicle Industry 15th Five-Year Plan,” a 2026-2030 roadmap, announcing new targets: new energy vehicles (NEVs) should account for 70% of domestic new passenger-car sales and 40% of new commercial-vehicle sales by 2030.  China also plans to deploy vehicles equipped with autonomous driving functions at scale, saying that the safety performance of such vehicles should substantially surpass that of human drivers. They say mechanisms will support this by assessing the technology’s maturity and safety. The plan calls for tighter oversight of vehicle and battery capacity, mergers and restructuring, and curbs on improper local investment incentives.  It is a top-down approach led by the central government, with strict goals and standards for companies and the buying public.

China’s goal is only sightly different than the mandate proposed by the Biden administration which would have required automakers to have electric vehicles command about 67 percent of their new car sales in 2032. The Biden mandate was later eliminated by the Trump administration.

Besides setting NEV sales shares, the plan calls for average passenger-vehicle fuel consumption to fall to 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers by 2030, while battery electric passenger cars should consume around 11.5 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers. Labor productivity per employee across the industry is targeted to rise 15% from 2025 levels. Highly automated driving will be implemented on expressways, urban expressways, and selected urban roads. To advance commercialization, China will conduct demonstrations involving autonomous passenger cars, buses, long-haul logistics and urban delivery, while taking an orderly approach to vehicle approvals and road access. The plan also aims to foster several automakers ranked among the world’s top 10 by sales, along with auto parts companies ranked among the global top 100. China wants its auto industry to join the ranks of the world’s automotive powerhouses.

To implement the plan, China will maintain NEV tax incentives, support vehicle trade-ins, promote NEV adoption in rural areas, and back the replacement of city buses and their batteries. It will also deepen reforms to NEV insurance. It aims to centralize transportation control under the State.

At the end of last year, new energy vehicles accounted for 54% of all passenger vehicle sales in China. Electric vehicles and hybrids accounted for 65% of China’s total passenger car sales in August, according to data by the local Passenger Car Association (PCA). EV targets are expected to continue eroding road fuel demand in China, which has been falling for the second year in a row. This year’s decline is steeper due to higher oil prices stemming from the Iran conflict.

In Southeast Asia, consumers are willing to wait in long lines to buy popular Chinese NEV models. In Europe, five Chinese automakers sold a combined 138,000 vehicles across 31 countries in May, up 64% year on year. For the first time, Chinese automakers surpassed Japanese carmakers in monthly new vehicle registrations in Europe. In South America, Brazil is the largest destination for China’s NEV exports. In July, BYD’s plant in Brazil produced its 100,000th vehicle.

Data from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers show that China’s exports rose from 977,300 in 2013 to 7.098 million vehicles in 2025, more than sixfold in 12 years. From 2021 to 2025, China’s vehicle exports increased by about one million units annually. In the first seven months of this year, China’s vehicle exports reached 6.14 million units, up 66.8% year on year. Strong NEV growth has played a major role in propelling China to become the world’s largest automobile exporter.

China’s Sinopec, the world’s top refiner by capacity, expects Chinese oil demand to drop by 8.9%— 600,000 barrels per day — in 2026 from a year earlier, due to demand destruction from higher oil prices and the acceleration of EV adoption. Gasoline demand is expected to decline by 8.7%, while diesel consumption is expected to drop by 11.4%. The only petroleum product used in transportation expected to increase is jet fuel, whose demand is expected to rise by 1.3% this year compared to 2025.

China, the world’s largest oil importer, built a huge oil reserve of around 1.4 billion barrels and banned exports of petroleum products during the spring and early summer of the Iran conflict, which helped the country absorb price increases from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranians. The high oil prices also sped up the adoption of electric vehicles.

With these changes, Sinopec, or China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation as it is officially known, is looking to transform its business. Sinopec will be allocating more capital to new energy and chemicals by the end of the decade to grow revenues and profits amid the lowest domestic fuel sales in China in nearly a decade. The company’s chairman is looking to develop shale oil fields, sustainable aviation fuels, and cut refining costs to make Sinopec more resilient to the declining fuel demand in China. In its first-half earnings release, Sinopec noted falling domestic fuel sales, which have been weighing on the company’s earnings for two years.

Conclusion

China targets NEV shares of 70% for passenger-car sales and 40% for commercial-vehicle sales by 2030 in its 5-year plan. Vehicles equipped with autonomous driving functions are expected to enter large-scale use, with safety performance substantially surpassing that of human drivers. These sales goals are not far-fetched, as NEV sales in August were 62% of total vehicle sales, and high oil prices due to the Iran conflict helped drive EV adoption. China, the world’s largest oil importer, is weathering the closure of the Strait of Hormuz fairly well, as it has reduced its oil imports and banned petroleum exports for much of the conflict in the spring and early summer of 2026.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

AEA Sends Letter To Majority Leader Thune Urging Prioritization of CRA Resolutions to Block California’s EPA Waivers

September 29, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, September 29, 2026 The American Energy Alliance followed up on a letter sent by a coalition of 25 free market advocacy groups 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 is available below.

California Waiver CRA Letter September 26Download
Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

AEA Welcomes Rule to Reform CAFE Standards 

September 29, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (9/29/26) – Yesterday, the Trump administration finalized a rule resetting Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The initiative put forth by the Department of Transportation, dubbed Freedom Means Affordable Cars, provides greater flexibility to automakers and reduces costs for Americans.

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

“CAFE is a relic of a bygone era when scarcity was dictating energy policy. Washington has no place being in the business of deciding what kind of car Americans can buy. This rule offers a significant improvement, allowing manufacturers to work on actual fuel efficiency innovation rather than relying on EV mandates or complicated fleetwide accounting.

“Ending the credit-trading scheme, which effectively shifted costs onto buyers of standard vehicles while benefiting EV manufacturing, is especially important. Additionally, these changes give automakers greater certainty and make it harder for future administrations to abruptly reverse course.

“Most importantly, this is about affordability and choice. With projected savings of roughly $1,300 per vehicle, families should have a little more wiggle room in their budgets and more freedom to buy the cars and trucks that actually fit their lives, their work, and their needs, not the vehicles that politicians and bureaucrats think they should drive.

“President Trump should be commended for upending the abuses of the CAFE program by the Obama and Biden administrations. But as long as the government has the authority to mandate fuel efficiency, the ability of future administrations to further disrupt auto markets will persist. It’s time for Congress to repeal CAFE altogether.”

AEA Experts Available for Interview on This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

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

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #281: Not the Worst Thing

September 28, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle, Mike McKenna, and Alex Stevens discuss the prospects of senate hopefuls, a congressional permitting deal, a diesel export ban, California’s high-speed rail project, and more.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Banning Diesel Exports is Bad Policy and Bad Politics

September 23, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Oil companies’ motives have been the subject of senseless political rhetoric in Washington for more than a century. With the mid-term elections rapidly approaching, lawmakers are continuing this time-honored tradition by calling for a ban on diesel exports – this time, it’s mostly coming from Republicans. It’s a bad idea and a big mistake for President Trump to embrace. We’ll get to that part later.

First, let’s start with some basic information about the U.S. refining industry. The U.S. Gulf Coast (PADD 3) contains over half of the total U.S. refining capacity. Pipelines moving refined products to the East Coast (PADD 1) and Midwest (PADD 2), such as the Colonial Pipeline, frequently run at or near max capacity. That is why, even before the Iran war started, the Gulf Coast exported diesel and other refined products while other parts of the country imported those same products from Canada or overseas.

If you ban diesel exports from the Gulf Coast, refiners there will still have very few avenues to get their product to market (even with the Jones Act waiver). As these barrels stack up, the logical thing for them to do is start catching up on long-deferred maintenance at their facilities. That means overall production will fall, essentially nullifying the perceived supply-increase benefits of an export ban.  

In 2022, when fuel prices were high because of the war in Ukraine, two analyses looked at the impact of an export ban. An American Council for Capital Formation’s July 2022 study estimated that a ban on diesel (without Jones Act waivers) would shutter approximately 1.3 million barrels per day of refining capacity, raise East and West Coast distillate prices by more than 45 cents per gallon during the second half of 2022, and reduce 2023 GDP by more than $44 billion. Likewise, the Dallas Federal Reserve examined proposals to lower domestic fuel prices by banning U.S. crude oil exports. It concluded that such restrictions would ultimately backfire and drive pump prices higher. The authors explain that because domestic refined fuels like gasoline and diesel are globally traded commodities, restricting U.S. crude exports would reduce overall supply on international markets and raise global prices. Because refiners sell products based on global benchmarks, domestic fuel prices would not drop and could even rise, denying consumers any financial relief while temporarily enriching light-sweet crude refiners. Over time, the resulting collapse in domestic oil prices would force U.S. oil producers to scale back operations, worsening the national trade deficit, deepening long-term dependence on foreign crude, and leaving the domestic economy more vulnerable to future international supply shocks.

Reducing refinery runs would reduce not only diesel supply, but also the supply of other refined products. Each barrel of crude oil yields multiple products. If diesel production is cut, other production falls too. So a diesel ban would likely push up gasoline prices as well. But it gets even worse. U.S. diesel exports are a major part of global supply, and they’ve helped limit upward pressure on global prices. Eliminating those exports will push global prices even higher. So everywhere in the U.S. where diesel is imported (most of the country) will face higher prices after an export ban.

Since the start of the Iran conflict earlier this year, prices of all oil and gas commodities (crude oil, fertilizer, LNG, and refined products like gasoline and diesel) have increased. This is a natural consequence of a major war in the Middle East. That conflict, and the war between Russia and Ukraine (especially with the latest phase of Ukrainian drones taking out Russian refineries), directly drives high diesel prices worldwide. As long as these conflicts persist, diesel prices will remain elevated – export ban or no export ban. 

The Biden administration considered a diesel export ban, prompting Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to ask the National Petroleum Council for a report. The Biden NPC concluded that it would be a bad idea, citing that “free, unrestricted trade is key for the efficient operation of markets and enabling the lowest cost supply.” The point is this: even President Biden, who paused LNG exports in the run-up to a political election, passed on a diesel export ban. 

And now, to return to President Trump. We hear that his administration is getting ready to pull the trigger on a 90-day diesel export ban, something that even President Biden decided was an unwise move. Doing so may curry favor with politicians in Iowa, Michigan, or Tennessee, but it will ultimately prove to be costly. Democrats, who for years have called for export bans on crude oil, diesel, and natural gas, are surely going to call on President Trump to do more of the same if they end up holding the gavel next January. More importantly, the farmers and motorists who are being promised relief at the pump will be very disappointed. Let’s hope cooler heads like Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Secretary Doug Burgum prevail. 

President Trump was firm in his resolve that the upcoming election is the furthest thing from his mind in his prosecution against Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, higher diesel prices are an unintended consequence of this effort. The President should apply that same resolve and resist calls from his fellow Republicans to make matters worse for American farmers and motorists by messing up energy markets. 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

American Energy Alliance Releases 2026 American Energy Scorecard

September 22, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (9/22/2026) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA) is pleased to release the 2026 American Energy Scorecard for members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. This comprehensive tool evaluates legislators’ voting records and cosponsorship decisions on critical energy issues to inform voters and hold Members of Congress accountable to their constituents.

You can find the full list of American Energy champions in the House of Representatives here.

You can find the full list of American Energy champions in the Senate here.

AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Energy is fundamental to our prosperity as a country, as individuals, families, and businesses, and energy policy can have real consequences. Never has the discussion of affordable, reliable energy been more important or more prevalent than it is now. As we approach elections this year, voters deserve factual information about what their elected officials are doing to ensure America’s energy security, keep energy prices down, and ensure grid reliability. 

“The Scorecard gives constituents the opportunity to look beyond speeches and political rhetoric and evaluate lawmakers based on their actions. The American Energy Alliance applauds this year’s energy champions and thanks them for their leadership in prioritizing American energy.”

Core Principles of the American Energy Scorecard:

  • Promoting affordable, abundant, and reliable energy.
  • Expanding economic opportunity and prosperity, particularly for working families and those on fixed incomes.
  • Empowering Americans to make their own energy choices, free from bureaucratic constraints.
  • Encouraging private sector innovation and entrepreneurship.
  • Advancing market-oriented energy and environmental policies.
  • Reducing government interference in energy markets.
  • Eliminating subsidies, mandates, and special interest giveaways that drive up energy costs.

Each member received advance notice of the votes to be scored, ensuring transparency and fairness. The scored votes covered a diverse range of energy issues affecting the American people.

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

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

Filed Under: Press Releases, Scorecard Tagged With: ,

The Unregulated Podcast #280: AI is Two Letters

September 21, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle, Mike McKenna and Alex Stevens return for a wide ranging discussion on AI, electricity prices, midterm predictions, and more.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

2026 American Energy Scorecard Senate Results

September 21, 2026 by Leave a Comment

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.

Filed Under: Blog, Scorecard Tagged With: , , ,
Next