Venezuela Highlights Perils Of Nationalizing Energy

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but its petroleum industry, which was once very productive, has been reduced to a fraction of its former capacity due to mismanagement, underinvestment due to failed government policies, and international sanctions. Rebuilding Venezuela’s oil output from 900,000 barrels per day — less than 1% of global oil supply — to its former productivity will be a challenge and take years, billions of dollars, and political stability.

U.S. Imports of Venezuelan Oil

Venezuelan crude once flowed heavily into the United States, peaking at 1.4 million barrels a day in 1997, when the shipments accounted for nearly half of the country’s oil production, according to the Energy Information Administration. That trade eroded steadily over the following two decades, falling to about 506,000 barrels a day by 2018. After Washington imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry in 2019 in response to President Nicolás Maduro’s disputed re-election, U.S. purchases dropped to negligible levels.

As explained by Reuters, to compensate, American refiners, particularly those along the Gulf and West coasts, turned to heavy crude from Canada and Mexico. Many of those facilities were built decades ago to process dense, high-sulfur oil and are poorly suited to handle the lighter, sweeter crude produced in large volumes from U.S. shale fields. As a result, much of the domestic light oil is exported, while refineries continue to rely on foreign heavy grades to operate efficiently.

China accounted for more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports of 768,000 barrels per day last year as it became the main importer of Venezuelan oil after President Trump imposed sanctions on the country’s energy industry in 2019. Recently, China’s imports of Venezuelan oil have declined as the United States increased enforcement of oil sanctions against the Maduro regime by seizing tankers.

Venezuela’s Oil Reserves Are Extensive 

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves of 303 billion barrels, accounting for approximately 17% of global reserves, which are concentrated in the Orinoco belt region. Via EnergyNow, operations in the Orinoco Belt require advanced extraction technologies like steam injection and diluents for transport. These are technologies that U.S. companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil are known to excel in. At current prices around $57 per barrel, the potential gross value would total $17.3 trillion. Even at half that value, or about $8.7 trillion, Venezuela’s GDP would be higher than the GDP of every nation except the United States and China.

U.S. oil companies helped discover and develop Venezuela’s oil beginning in the 1920s, with Venezuela becoming the world’s second-largest producer by the 1930s. Western companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, were forced to retreat after Venezuela nationalized the industry first in the 1970s and again under Hugo Chavez in the 2000s. According to Reuters, Venezuela’s production consequently shrank from a peak of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1970 to a low of 665,000 barrels per day in 2021 before slightly recovering in 2024. The Wall Street Journal reports thatafter ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil pulled out of Venezuela in 2007 when Chávez nationalized their assets, Conoco sued the Venezuelan government for more than $20 billion, and Exxon sued for $12 billion. The companies were awarded only fractions of their losses in protracted arbitration proceedings.

According to the Wall Street Journal, for these companies to return and invest billions in the country’s oil industry, a broad economic stabilization plan is needed to attract the financing to rebuild infrastructure and rusted oil-field installations. Local laws also need to be modified to allow private energy firms to operate without state overreach. And the government has to restructure some $160 billion in debt and settle pending arbitration cases with foreign companies, including Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron.

To fully restore Venezuela’s oil sector is estimated to take five to seven years by one estimate and by at least a decade by another, and requires U.S. oil companies to “spend billions of dollars” to fix the “badly broken infrastructure.” According to the New York Times, this includes repairing looted pipes, abandoned rigs, and a mismanaged, corrupt industry. Despite an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela’s output has plummeted to about 900,000 barrels a day from about 3.5 million barrels a day in 1997. About one-third of it is produced by Chevron, exporting around 150,000 barrels per day to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

As reported by Reuters, assuming political, legal, and financial hurdles are resolved, developing new oil and gas projects would still take years. Venezuelan oil production could increase by up to 200,000 barrels per day in the first year, according to Rapidan Energy’s forecasts, and double to two million barrels per day within a decade under its most optimistic scenario.

Venezuela’s Electric Grid Will Also Be a Challenge

According to Grid Brief, Venezuela once had about 36 gigawatts of installed generation capacity. By the late 2010s, only about 10 to 12 gigawatts of capacity were available for reliable service.

Hydropower once accounted for the majority of the nation’s electricity, generating 65 to 80% in some years. The Guri Dam complex on the Caroní River in Bolívar state has a nameplate capacity of about 10,235 megawatts spread across more than 30 turbine-generator units of various sizes. Other hydro plants include the Caruachi Dam with about 2,160 megawatts and the Macagua complex with 3,168 megawatts across a couple of dozen units. When these units were affected by droughts in the mid-2010s, the country turned to thermal units to back up the hydropower. These plants include Termozulia, with about 1,590 megawatts of combined gas turbines near Maracaibo, Cardón Genevapca at 315 megawatts, and clusters of smaller units in places like Barinas, El Furrial, and Guarenas.

In the early 2010s, emergency programs purchased additional gas turbines and modular units, often under hastily negotiated contracts, to add 3,000 to 4,000 megawatts of capacity. However, many of the thermal plants were never properly integrated into the grid, lacked consistent natural gas or diesel supply, or were unfinished. Combined-cycle units were half-built, and imported wind turbines located on the Paraguaná peninsula produced almost no megawatts. By 2019, the thermal fleet’s effective contribution had collapsed, leaving hydro to carry nearly all of what little power remained.

Transmission and distribution losses rose into the mid-to-high 20% range, resulting in a quarter or more of every megawatt produced disappearing in transit due to aging lines, overheated transformers, poor maintenance, and outdated protection systems. Since 2019, the country has experienced thousands of outages each year. In western states like Zulia and the Andes, extended rationing of up to eight hours of cuts per day is normal.

Analysis

With Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro removed, a window of opportunity exists for Venezuela to become a prosperous, oil-producing country. However, any optimism should be tempered by the knowledge that achieving this outcome will require substantial political and economic reform. The lack of stable economic and social institutions, resulting in political repression and industry nationalization under Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, caused Venezuela to reach its current level of poverty and low oil production. It would take substantial American involvement to alter these institutions. Furthermore, low crude oil prices, poor infrastructure, and still-existing political risk mean that oil companies won’t be rushing to increase production in Venezuela anytime soon.

Another important consideration is how U.S. action in Venezuela will affect U.S.-China relations. As Allen Brooks writes for Master Resource“The decision to allow Venezuela to sell oil to China ensures that the nation will retain its commercial relationships, which are essential for ongoing international business activity. At the same time, it is a signal to China that the U.S. will enforce the Monroe Doctrine policies, removing the Americas as a focal point for increased Chinese involvement, which has involved significant investment in mines, ports, and other South American industries. The move also puts China on notice that its Venezuelan oil flows could be shut off instantly over unfriendly actions towards the U.S., changing the energy landscape for China.”


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

California Mandates Billion Dollar, Bird-Butchering, Boondoggle Stay Online

California is keeping the Ivanpah solar plant operating due to “reliability” and the state’s “green” energy mandates, despite concerns from the private sector and the federal government. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility was set to shut down in 2026 after failing to meet its energy targets. Despite receiving $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees, nearly 75% of the facility’s cost, it struggled to generate power and had to rely on natural gas to operate rather than the sun. In January, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced an agreement with the plant’s owners to terminate its contracts for two of the plant’s three units starting in 2026. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently rejected those contracts, citing shifting federal priorities, state policy regarding renewables project development, and sunk infrastructure costs.

As explained by the Review-Journal, to generate electricity, Ivanpah uses concentrated thermal power plants — a system of mirrors to reflect sunlight and generate thermal energy, which is then concentrated to power a steam engine. The plant, which cost $2.2 billion to build, was originally expected to run until 2039, but Solar Partners offered PG&E an opportunity to terminate the power purchase agreements to save ratepayers money. However, California’s stringent “green energy” goals, requiring 100% “clean” energy by 2045, are standing in the way.

Ivanpah has been accused of reportedly blinding pilots, incinerating over 6,000 birds a year, and generating power inefficiently. The Review-Journal explains that birds incinerated by Ivanpah are referred to as “streamers” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. Federal wildlife investigators reported an average of one “streamer” every two minutes on a visit to the plant 10 years ago. There are also other wildlife concerns with the plant, such as road runners that become trapped along its perimeter fencing and are attacked by predators.

The Ivanpah concentrated solar technology has essentially been replaced by solar photovoltaic (PV). Solar PV is the technology that is being built throughout the United States and abroad by utilities and installed on homeowners’ rooftops. According to Robert Bryce, Ivanpah is costing California residents an extra $100 million per year, but the state “can’t afford to let go of any renewables no matter how uneconomic.”

As he explains, “Ivanpah is producing about 750,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. Reports show that PG&E has been paying about $180 per megawatt‑hour for the electricity from Ivanpah. For comparison, new solar PV projects can produce power for about $40 per MWh. Thus, the CPUC commissioners — all appointed by Newsom — are requiring California ratepayers to pay a premium of $140 per MWh for the juice from Ivanpah, even though they could get the same electricity from cheaper sources. Simple multiplication ($140/MWh x 750,000 MWh/yr) shows that Newsom’s minions are mandating Californians to pay $105 million per year more for electricity from Ivanpah than they should be paying.”

California has the second-highest residential electricity price in the country at 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, second only to Hawaii. According to Robert Bryce, PG&E, the state’s largest utility, has been requesting rate increases and receiving them from the CPUC. Last year, the CPUC approved six rate increasesIn March, the utility asked the CPUC for another rate increase, followed by another rate increase in October. In September, PG&E announced a $73 billion grid upgrade plan supposedly to meet surging artificial intelligence data center demand.

Rather than letting utilities determine the best technologies to meet consumers’ needs and achieve grid reliability, California has a renewable portfolio standard that mandates utilities add renewable energy like wind and solar power. Senate Bill (SB) 1078 created the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2002, beginning with a 20% renewables requirement by 2017. In 2015, SB 350 raised the RPS target to 50% by 2030; in 2018, SB 100 pushed it to 60% by 2030 and 100% “carbon-free” electricity by 2045.

Besides the RPS, California has other policies that intentionally increase electricity rates, including a carbon dioxide reduction mandatenet metering for solarnuclear reactor closures, and electric vehicle charging subsidies, among others. Via Robert Bryce, last year, the CPUC issued a report predicting that the state’s electricity rates would soar over the next few years.

Analysis

Robert Bryce puts it well when he argues that, “The Ivanpah concentrated-solar project has been an environmental and economic disaster.” If California had allowed reliable generating technologies to continue being built instead of forcing their premature retirement in favor of “green” energy, consumers and businesses could have the power they need without rising rates. As is the case with keeping Ivanpah open, California’s policies force utilities to request rate increases to pay for their implementation.


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

Newsom’s Democrats Propose New Tax On Californians

As the Washington Examiner explains, California’s newest tax proposal is basically a subscription service that bills monthly for how often a car is driven. According to KMPH 26, the state has been paying for road maintenance through an ever-increasing gas tax that covers about 80% of the state’s road maintenance. At the same time, the state wants people to transition to electric vehicles (EVs) to help meet its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As more people switch to electric and plug-in vehicles, California is realizing it needs a new way to cover road maintenance. The state ran a pilot program to test a per-mile fee that charged EV owners between two and four cents for every mile that they drove.

Via The Daily Overview, under the pilot program, volunteer drivers allowed the state to track their mileage using odometer readings, plug-in devices, or smartphone apps. Participants then received mock invoices showing what they would have paid under a per-mile road charge in place of the gasoline tax. The aim was to evaluate not only the technology behind mileage tracking, but also how motorists respond to seeing road use billed as a separate line item. An interim report to the legislature detailed how participants reacted to the various data-collection methods and pricing structures.

In 2017, California raised its state gas tax supposedly to maintain the state’s roads, despite a state budget of $179.5 billion. California has the highest gas tax in the country at 71 cents per gallon. But as more people switch to EVs, the gas tax will cover less of the state’s road costs. Despite California’s budget increasing to $325 billion, the state needs an additional tax to build and maintain its roads. The Washington Examiner argues that the per-mile tax will inevitably increase, as the gas tax did, requiring taxpayers to pay every month for the privilege of using state roads.

KMPH 26 broke down a possible hypothetical road tax as follows: “If you live in Hanford and commute to and from Fresno 5 days a week with a Toyota Camry, you would have to pay just over $11 if the road tax is 3 cents.” That is $11 per week if you commute about 40 minutes to work every day, not counting any other additional drives, or about $44 a month.

According to The Daily Overview, advocates say a per-mile tax more accurately reflects how much drivers use the roads and can be structured so that someone who drives 10,000 miles a year pays about the same as they would under the existing fuel tax, whether they drive a gasoline-powered SUV or an electric crossover.

Via CarScoops, there are issues with the program that need to be resolved, including drivers reporting lower mileage than actually driven. Options exist to monitor vehicle mileage, such as installing a tracking device that plugs into the car and logs the miles traveled. That could be an expensive option given the size of California, and balancing effective tracking with individual privacy rights could be a problem. Another issue is that a flat per‑mile fee would fall hardest on drivers who live far from job centers or cannot afford to live near transit, raising questions about whether the state should build in discounts or credits for low‑income households or rural residents. How the program is rolled out is another issue. Lawmakers will have to decide whether to phase in mileage fees first for EVs that currently pay little or nothing at the pump, or to move the entire fleet onto a per‑mile model at once.

Oregon’s Road Usage Charge

Oregon has a per-mile fee road usage program called OReGO. Volunteers pay a per-mile charge for the miles they drive and receive a non-refundable credit for fuel tax paid at the pump, and drivers of highly efficient vehicles and EVs are eligible for reduced registration fees. The current charge is two cents per mile driven, but beginning January 1, 2026, OReGO drivers will pay 2.3 cents per mile.

According to The Oregonian, the “road usage charge” of 2.3 cents per mile will go into effect for existing EV owners on July 1, 2027, new EV owners on January 1, 2028, and owners of hybrids on July 1, 2028. Hybrid owners will be reimbursed for any gas tax they paid. The mechanism for doing so still needs to be determined. Hybrid and EV owners who do not want the state tracking the number of miles they drive can pay a flat $340 annual “road usage charge” instead of 2.3 cents per mile driven.

Analysis

Transitioning to EVs requires broad economic and political reform, including new supply chains, charging infrastructure, and mechanisms for funding roads. California’s test of a road tax exemplifies an attempt to increase EVs’ share of the cost burden for road maintenance. It makes sense that EVs should pay for road maintenance when considering the costs their heaviness imposes on infrastructure. As we explained in When Government Chooses Your Car, “Due to their heavier weight, EVs contribute to increased wear on roads and bridges, leading to higher maintenance costs for infrastructure that are not typically accounted for in EV ownership costs.”


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

Key Vote YES on H.R. 4776

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 4776 the SPEED Act.

The SPEED Act makes important modifications to the National Environmental Policy Act, including codifying principles of the decision in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO Supreme Court case. These reforms will help reduce the harms and abuse of the NEPA litigation process and allow important infrastructure to be built in a more timely and cost-effective process. Abuse of the NEPA process impedes all sectors of the economy, limiting job and economic growth to little purpose. Major reforms to NEPA are still needed, but this legislation marks an important first step.

A YES vote on H.R. 4776 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

AEA Statement on the PERMIT Act

WASHINGTON DC (12/12/25) – This week, the U.S. House began what is slated to be two weeks of permitting action. Most notable on the calendar so far has been the passage of H.R. 3898, the “Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act,” which reforms Section 401 permitting through the Clean Water Act. Section 401 permits have long been weaponized to stop the development of natural gas pipeline infrastructure.

This legislation will be included in our American Energy Scorecard and was passed 221-205.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“We are pleased to see the House take permitting reform seriously by debating and passing components of much-needed legislation. While this is a great start in the right direction, legislators need to ensure we are advancing true environmental reforms and not just engaging in an end-of-year box-checking exercise. With a Republican-led White House and Congress, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize America’s outdated permitting process, overhaul the environmental rules that have long delayed energy and infrastructure projects, and pave the way for lower energy costs, greater competition, and a stronger, more secure energy economy. We will be watching closely and look forward to working with House members to see meaningful, comprehensive reform take shape.”

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.R. 3898

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act.

This legislation makes important reforms to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) which will reduce permitting uncertainty and minimize abuse of the CWA permitting process. For many years now, the CWA permitting process, especially the 401 permitting process, has been abused and manipulated by some participants to impede or entirely prevent needed energy infrastructure. This abuse of process went far beyond the intent of the legislation when passed 50 and more years ago. The updates made by H.R. 3898 will ensure that the CWA returns to its intended role in controlling water pollution rather than being used as an excuse to prevent development.

A YES vote on H.R. 3898 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote it in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #256: An Impeachable Offense

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the woes of the American auto consumer, the future of the ethanol mafia, the end of Europe’s green dream, and more.

Links:

Key Vote YES on H.J. Res. 131

The American Energy Alliance supports H.J. Res. 131 providing for congressional disapproval of the 2024 BLM leasing plan for the Alaska coastal plain.

The Alaska coastal plain has long been set aside by Congress for oil and gas development. In 2017 Congress specifically mandated leasing in the coastal plain. The Biden administration’s BLM plan placed so many limitations on coastal plain leasing that it amounted to a de facto ban on development, contradicted the express will of Congress. While the current administration has worked to reverse this action administratively, passing this CRA resolution will ensure that future presidential administrations cannot reinstate this backdoor ban.

A YES vote on H.J. Res. 131 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Another Win for Consumers: President Trump Announces Reset of CAFE Standards

WASHINGTON DC (12/3/25) – Today, President Trump announced a reset of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, an outdated fuel efficiency mandate that has, for decades, made trucks and cars in the United States significantly more expensive. 

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“President Trump’s reset of the CAFE program is yet another win for the American people. Both car manufacturing and car purchasing are expensive and difficult enough without the federal government stepping in to impose its will on the auto industry. 

“The Biden administration abused the CAFE program to implement a de facto electric vehicle mandate. EVs, which currently cost thousands more than gas-powered cars and trucks, are simply not affordable for most Americans, and consumers should not be forced into buying them.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill took an important step by zeroing out CAFE penalties. By fully reversing the Biden-era CAFE standards, automakers will have the long-term certainty they need to invest with confidence to produce the cars people want to drive. The marketplace must be shaped by consumer choice, not political preference. Today’s action prioritizes the American people over meddling bureaucrats in Washington. These directives are a positive start in the right direction, and we look forward to assisting the administration in its mission of reducing federal regulations and protecting American freedoms.

We also call on Congress to seriously consider repealing the CAFE law altogether, as it was never intended to force such dramatic changes to the automobile market, such as those envisioned by President Biden.”

Background

A significant reason new car prices have spiralled out of control is the ever-growing burden of regulations. According to Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for a new vehicle surpassed $50,000 for the first time in September, a threshold that’s putting car ownership out of reach for millions of Americans. Perhaps most strikingly, the average transaction price for electric vehicles (EVs) was $9,300 higher than the overall industry average. EVs remain significantly more expensive than conventional vehicles, which underscores why it’s a positive development that the incoming Trump administration is rejecting the Biden-era push to force consumers into EVs through aggressive mandates and subsidies.

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

American Energy Alliance’s Statement on WOTUS and ESA Reform

WASHINGTON DC (12/3/25) – In a victory for conservation, the rule of law, property rights, and rural communities, the Trump administration recently proposed two long-overdue rules that restore balance to federal environmental policy while pursuing genuine conservation.

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a new rule that aligns the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act with the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision. Simultaneously, the Department of the Interior announced common-sense updates to Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that focus on species recovery rather than divisive litigation and illegal federal land management.  

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

“The Trump administration’s WOTUS reform finally reins in decades of federal overreach and respects the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision. At the same time, the proposed Endangered Species Act updates will end the abuse of a 50-year-old law that has been wielded as a sledgehammer against landowners and has not provided sufficient incentives to recover endangered species.  These are pro-environment, pro-economy, pro-America reforms that prove we can conserve our natural heritage and unleash American innovation at the same time. This is exactly the balanced, reasonable regulation the American people voted for.”

Waters of the United States

The WOTUS rule will focus federal regulation within the bounds set by the Constitution, empower states and local communities, and ensure that federal resources are focused on protecting America’s navigable waters.

The proposed rule, announced by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle, will end the regulatory ping-pong between administrations and instead establish a rule that builds lasting credibility. Over the years, federal regulators have used the Clean Water Act to regulate wetlands, regardless of the restrictions the Constitution places on the federal government’s power.  By focusing on the proper limits of the federal government, this new rule protects landowners from overzealous federal regulators and allows the state to exercise its regulatory prerogatives under the Constitution.  

Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act, like the Clean Water Act, has been improperly used as a tool of federal land use management for too long. Instead of properly focusing on protecting species, federal regulators have frequently wielded the ESA to punish landowners. This suite of regulatory changes focuses the listing process on the best scientific and commercial data, improves the consultation between federal agencies, requires species-specific rules for threatened (as opposed to endangered species), and clarifies how economic and national security impacts are taken into consideration in the designation of critical habitat.  

Overall, these rules will create better incentives for federal regulators to partner with landowners to recover endangered and threatened species. 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]