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

American Energy Alliance Names Sherrod Brown “Energy Loser”

October 19, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (10/19/26) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, released its annual Congressional Scorecard. The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educates voters on how their senators vote, and holds members accountable for those decisions.  

During his almost two decades in the Senate, Sherrod Brown earned a dismal 2% lifetime score on the American Energy Scorecard.

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“During his time serving the people of Ohio, Sherrod Brown repeatedly and deliberately voted against the very measures that would make life easier and more affordable for his constituents. Now, after voters have already told him they’d had enough, he’s hoping the high prices he helped create will send him back to Congress.

“Ohio families are paying the price for Brown’s anti-consumer, anti-energy voting record, when what they deserve is energy that is affordable, reliable, and accessible. In stark contrast to Brown’s record, Senator John Husted has a perfect 100% voting record, ensuring energy that keeps costs down and lights on for American families. When it comes to energy affordability, Ohioans have a clear choice on November 3rd.”

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.

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: , , ,

American Energy Alliance Names Mary Peltola “Energy Loser”

October 19, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (10/19/26) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, released its annual Congressional Scorecard. The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educates voters on how their senators vote, and holds members accountable for those decisions.  

During her time in Congress, Mary Peltola earned a dismal 37% score on the American Energy Scorecard. 

American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement: 

“Mary Peltola already had a chance to represent Alaska, the country’s fifth-largest oil producer, and during her brief stint in Congress she voted against its energy interests time and time again. When Congress considered legislation challenging the Biden administration’s restrictions on oil and gas development in Alaska, she voted only ‘Present,’ turning her back on Alaskans and the state’s energy economy to keep favor with her party.  

“Despite multiple opportunities to ease burdensome regulations and make it easier to produce energy in her home state, she repeatedly voted in favor of regulatory hurdles. Mary Peltola already made it clear where she stands, and it’s not on the side of affordable energy or abundant jobs for Alaskans. 

“In stark contrast, Senator Dan Sullivan has an impressive 93% lifetime record of defending affordable, reliable energy. As November quickly approaches, the choice should be easy for voters when deciding who best represents the interests of Alaskans.”

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.

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: , , ,

Mary Peltola: Energy Loser

October 19, 2026 by Leave a Comment

This November, voters in Alaska face a stark, clear choice about the future of their energy prices. A look at the voting records of Senator Dan Sullivan and Mary Peltola reveals two completely different visions for America’s energy security.

During her time in Congress, Mary Peltola earned a dismal 37% score on the American Energy Scorecard. This contrasts sharply with Senator Sullivan’s impressive 93% lifetime record of defending affordable, reliable energy.

The numbers speak for themselves: as a Congresswoman, Mary Peltola had 21 distinct opportunities to vote in favor of lower energy prices for Alaskan families. Two-thirds of the time, however, she deliberately voted to make energy more expensive, more scarce, and less reliable.

Her voting record is a highlight reel of anti-consumer, anti-energy, anti-Alaska policies including:

When we look closer at the cornerstone issues of her tenure, the damage to Alaskan families and the broader American economy becomes undeniable.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Rules

One of the clearest tests of a lawmaker’s commitment to basic financial fairness is where they stand on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) mandates. The American Energy Alliance strongly urged members of Congress to vote YES on H.J. Res. 30, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) rule relating to “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.”

Whatever one believes about the various policy issues bundled under the ESG umbrella, these topics are fundamentally not financial—they are political opinions. The personal political preferences of managers at financial firms should have no bearing on how they handle customer 401(k) investments..

Financial institutions that manage retirement plans are stewards of other people’s money. They cannot and should not be permitted to use retirees’ nest eggs to push their own political agendas. The Department of Labor’s rule opens the door to this exact outrage, allowing plan fiduciaries to inject personal political beliefs into the investment decision process. This directly violates basic fiduciary duty. When it comes to managing retirement funds, the rules should be simple and clear—and the DOL’s rule was anything but. Mary Peltola voted against the measure.

Alaska Energy Development

Clear, specific statutory law directed that the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and a portion of the Alaska Coastal Plain be available for oil and gas leasing and development. Yet the Biden administration’s Interior Department simply ignored clear congressional intent by purporting to cancel leases and suspend future leasing in these critical areas.

The Interior Department’s actions under Biden were illegal and directly contravened existing federal statute. When the House considered legislation to reiterate existing law and rein in this unlawful executive overreach, Mary Peltola faced a defining moment. Instead of standing up for Alaskans and defending her state against the tyrannical overreach of federal bureaucrats, Peltola cowardly voted “Present.” When her constituents needed a strong, decisive voice to defend Alaska’s energy economy, she refused to take a stand.

Domestic Energy Production

Throughout her time in Congress, Mary Peltola had multiple opportunities to reform America’s burdensome regulatory environment and make it easier to produce energy, not just in Alaska, but across the entire country. Instead, she favored restriction.

By consistently voting to make domestic energy more difficult to extract and produce, Mary Peltola played a direct, undeniable role in making basic necessities like gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, heating oil, and electricity drastically more expensive for American families. Restricting domestic supply hurts consumers, weakens national security, and forces Americans to pay more every single month.

Conclusion: Vote Based on the Energy Track Record

Energy abundance is the bedrock of a strong economy and a stable standard of living. When politicians allow federal agencies to impose political agendas on retirement funds, restrict domestic resources, and bow to executive overreach, working families bear the financial burden.

As voters evaluate leaders and their records, rhetoric matters far less than actual votes cast in Washington. Mary Peltola’s undeniable record demonstrates a failure to stand firm for domestic energy independence and fiduciary responsibility when it mattered most. By contrast, Senator Dan Sullivan consistently fights for Alaskans and affordable energy. When voters go to the ballot box, they must look directly at each candidate’s proven track record on energy and hold lawmakers accountable for their votes.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,

Sherrod Brown: Energy Loser

October 19, 2026 by Leave a Comment

This November, Ohio voters face a stark, clear choice about the future of their energy prices. A look at the Senate voting records of current Senator Jon Husted and former Senator Sherrod Brown reveals two completely different visions for America’s energy security.

During his decades in the Senate, Sherrod Brown earned a dismal 2% lifetime score on the American Energy Scorecard. This contrasts sharply with Senator Jon Husted’s perfect 100% record of defending affordable, reliable energy.

The numbers speak for themselves: Sherrod Brown had 48 distinct opportunities to vote to lower energy prices for Ohio families; 47 of those times he deliberately voted to make energy more expensive, scarcer, and less reliable.

His voting record is a highlight reel of anti-consumer, anti-energy policies, including:

When we look closer at the cornerstone issues of his tenure, the damage to Ohio families and the broader American economy becomes undeniable.

Keystone XL Pipeline

After more than six years of bureaucratic study and delay under the Obama administration, the Senate finally had the opportunity to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. Allowing this pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canadian border was unequivocally in the national interest, yet Sherrod Brown voted against it.

The Keystone XL pipeline was slated to create thousands of construction jobs. The influx of additional oil meant new manufacturing jobs right here in the United States and far more stable global oil prices. Ultimately, it would have supported a stronger economy and greater energy security for North America. Beyond the direct economic benefits, transporting oil by pipeline remains the safest, most efficient, and most environmentally friendly method available. Had it been built, Ohioans would have already been feeling the benefits of lower energy prices. In short, the pipeline could have delivered tremendous benefits, but Sherrod Brown still chose to stand in its way.

Carbon Taxes

On multiple occasions, the Senate has considered measures to protect citizens from energy taxes, such as in a 2015 amendment that raised a point of order against any legislative proposal to tax carbon dioxide. This amendment was designed to make it harder for Congress to impose a costly, harmful carbon tax on Americans. Brown voted against protecting families from this burden.

A carbon tax has a disastrous economic impact on American families. According to the Heritage Foundation, a $25-per-ton tax that rises just 5% each year would reduce a family of four’s income by $1,900 annually and raise their household energy costs by $500 per year—and that doesn’t even factor in the pain at the pump. It would hike gasoline prices by up to 50 cents per gallon, instantly wiping out the economic gains offered by affordable fuel.

Taxing carbon dioxide destroys jobs and suppresses economic growth. The National Association of Manufacturers found that a carbon tax could cost workers income equivalent to 21 million jobs by 2053, with manufacturing production declining by as much as 15% in energy-intensive sectors.

Make no mistake: taxing carbon dioxide amounts to a tax on modern life. Nearly everything we do depends on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide. Furthermore, a carbon tax has a disproportionately cruel impact on low-income families, who are forced to spend a much higher share of their household income on basic energy costs. By leaving the door open to these taxes, Sherrod Brown proves he has learned nothing from those mistakes.

Domestic Energy Production

During his time in the Senate, Sherrod Brown had multiple opportunities to reform America’s burdensome regulatory environment and make it easier to produce energy—not just in Ohio, but across the entire country. Instead, he chose restriction. By consistently voting to make domestic energy more difficult to extract and produce, Sherrod Brown played a direct, undeniable role in making basic necessities like gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, heating oil, and electricity drastically more expensive for decades.

The Green New Deal

When the Senate was forced to reckon with the Green New Deal in 2019, Sherrod Brown could not bring himself to vote against it. This was a radical resolution that openly called for the banning of beef cattle, the grounding of airplanes, the elimination of gasoline-powered vehicles, and the complete, unworkable decarbonization of America’s electric grid. If Brown won’t vote to protect Ohioans from one of the most destructive, expensive legislative proposals ever put before the Senate, he clearly can’t be trusted to put the needs of working families first. 

Inflation Reduction Act

Adding to his long history of anti-energy votes, Brown enthusiastically supported H.R. 5376, the 2022 budget reconciliation package better known as the poorly named Inflation Reduction Act.

The American Energy Alliance strongly urged all members to oppose this legislation. The package was stuffed with new taxes and reckless spending—bad policy on a good day, but incredibly dangerous amid historic inflation and an economy teetering toward recession. Multiple independent analyses confirmed that this legislation did nothing to reduce inflation, completely undermining the title its proponents adopted. More government spending, heavy-handed green subsidies, and job-killing taxes are the absolute last things a shaky economy needs.

Ohio families deserve abundant, affordable, and reliable energy. When voters head to the ballot box this November, they must remember exactly who fought for their wallets and who spent a decades-long career voting to empty them.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Massachusetts Governor Healey Runs From Anti-Pipeline Policies She Once Championed

October 15, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Less than a month before Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey faces reelection, she has called for an energy emergency, issuing an executive order to temporarily reduce electric bills and expand home heating aid ahead of the winter season. She claims her slate of changes and payouts could save residents tens of millions of dollars in heating costs this winter. She has also asked the Trump administration to expedite approval of a gas pipeline expansion that would save $40 million in annual costs, but she has called for a thorough environmental review first. These actions are occurring despite her frequent statements against natural gas pipelines during her tenure as attorney general.

Healey’s Energy Emergency Actions

Healey’s current proposal follows her administration’s earlier efforts to overhaul utility buying practices and temporarily suspend the state gas tax. Yet Massachusetts residents pay about twice the national average for electricity and face a winter of high energy bills. The state’s initiatives, approved by Healey and noted below, are projected to cut aggregate heating costs for state residents by tens of millions of dollars.

  • Middle-class relief will come from an assistance program that expands heating financial support to roughly 50,000 middle-income households. Eligible families that use heating oil can receive up to $680 in one-time financial support starting in December.
  • The state will add $15 million in low-income support for heating assistance, explicitly targeted at low-income residents.
  • An executive order will reduce electricity bills by temporarily removing a specific surcharge traditionally used to fund solar energy development across the state—a solar fee the state imposed on consumers’ bills in a northern climate.

This collaborative effort with Citizens Energy Corporation, known as the Emergency Winter Warmth Fund, will operate from November 1, 2026, through April 30, 2027.

Gas Pipeline Expansion

Governor Healey asked the Trump administration to expedite its review of a natural gas pipeline expansion project in New England. She sent a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, urging federal regulators to move as quickly as possible to assess the Reliable Affordable Resilient Enhancement proposal — known as Project RARE. The project, proposed by Enbridge, involves installing wider pipes along sections of the Algonquin natural gas pipeline that brings natural gas from New Jersey through southern New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and into Massachusetts.

Haeley claims the project will lower costs for 600,000 customers, saving customers about $40 million annually by replacing LNG with pipeline gas. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approved Eversource’s plan to purchase gas from the Project RARE expansion for 10 years.

New England, and Massachusetts in particular, has some of the country’s most expensive energy prices because of constraints and policies the state government has imposed. The state has fought new natural gas pipelines, so it must rely on imported, higher-priced LNG during periods of high home heating demand. On cold winter days, pipeline constraints force many gas power plants to burn more expensive oil.

If federal regulators approve Project RARE, Enbridge would replace about eight miles of existing pipelines with larger-diameter pipes in parts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and run a secondary pipeline along a segment in Rhode Island. The company would also upgrade a compressor station in Cromwell, Connecticut. The project is planned to be in service in 2028.

Source: WBUR

The 1,100-mile Algonquin pipeline is one of three large interstate pipelines that bring gas into Massachusetts, moving more than 3 billion cubic feet of gas per day. The expansion would increase that by about 75 million cubic feet per day, potentially bringing a substantial amount of natural gas into a part of Massachusetts where supply is very tight. The deal is not a cure-all; it cannot solve the region’s energy affordability issue on its own, but it will help meet winter demand from natural gas customers in southeastern Massachusetts and reduce reliance on higher-cost, foreign LNG. Reducing utilities’ reliance on LNG should save ratepayers money and reduce emissions since pipeline gas has a lower carbon footprint than LNG.

Healey’s actions, however, do not align with state policy, as Massachusetts has legally binding requirements to cut carbon dioxide emissions—targets that require reducing the use of natural gas. In 2015, Healey’s office released a study that she said showed the state did not need more gas pipeline capacity to keep its power grid reliable. As attorney general, Healey sued ExxonMobil in October 2019, accusing the company of deceiving Massachusetts consumers and investors about climate change.

Her dilemma is that high energy prices concern residents. About half of New England’s power comes from natural gas, and Massachusetts residents pay about twice the national average for electricity, despite being close to huge deposits in Pennsylvania. About a decade ago, when Healey was attorney general, she opposed two proposed pipeline expansion projects in the state. The state was more comfortable importing LNG from foreign sources, including Russia, than allowing pipelines. More recently, Healey is trying to justify her actions by saying her “all-of-the-above” approach to energy—which includes support for Project RARE—is not an about-face, but consistent with her position that she supports projects that save ratepayers money and opposes those that do not. Healey urged the federal government to move quickly. “Moving quickly does not mean cutting corners” on any environmental review or community engagement efforts, she said. “Thorough and timely review are not competing goals,” she wrote.

Project Beacon

Enbridge has proposed a second pipeline expansion project on the Algonquin pipeline. Like Project RARE, Project Beacon would involve building alongside existing pipelines and adding larger diameter pipes. Enbridge estimates it would increase pipeline capacity by about 10%, much more than RARE, with service possibly starting in 2030. Project Beacon is still early in development, and Enbridge has not submitted a proposal for federal review. A study recently released by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, a nonprofit affiliated with the conservative Mass Fiscal Alliance, found that Project Beacon could save utility gas customers in the state about $76 each winter.

Healey has not yet said whether she supports this project. But in her letter to the energy secretary, she wrote that “on several occasions” the two have discussed their “mutual desire to get more U.S. gas into New England.” She went on to mention Project Beacon, noting, “there may be more opportunities ahead,” as she is looking to advance gas expansion projects when they can lower energy bills.

In an email, Maria Hardiman, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said the administration has urged power plant owners in the state to explore contracts that could advance Project Beacon. “In order for Project Beacon to move forward, the utilities and power generators need to sign contracts with the pipeline developer,” Hardiman said.

Conclusion

Massachusetts Governor Healey issued an energy emergency due to high power and heating costs across the state—much of which is driven by state policies. Massachusetts residents pay very high energy costs because the state has limited energy production and is unwilling to site energy infrastructure. Healey issued an executive order that includes payouts and temporarily removes a surcharge on electric bills to support solar development across the state. She has also asked the Trump administration to expedite approval for a natural gas pipeline expansion project, Project RARE, while ensuring a thorough environmental review. Project RARE is estimated to save consumers $40 million annually and is expected to be in service by 2028. That project may be followed by another pipeline expansion project, Project Beacon, with a projected in-service date of 2030. Healey is pursuing natural gas pipeline projects despite blocking gas pipeline projects when she was Attorney General, indicating then that they were not needed.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

American Energy Unleashed: China Now Importing Coal From American Producers

October 14, 2026 by Leave a Comment

China and the United States have agreed to cut tariffs imposed on $60 billion worth of goods imported from each other, including U.S. corn, cosmetics, Chinese household appliances, and toys. The two sides reached a deal for China to import at least 10 million metric tons a year of U.S. coal in both 2027 and 2028 (about 2% of China’s coal imports), which it can easily do as it imported more than 12 million tons in 2024. China is the world’s largest coal producer, consumer, and importer, and became a net importer of coal in 2009. China’s coal pledge comes amid disappointing domestic output and uncertainty from its top overseas supplier, Indonesia. Imports from Indonesia have plummeted 25% so far this year as Indonesia seeks stricter management of its natural resource exports. The commitment to buy U.S. coal was the most specific commitment either country announced following the meeting. No agreements were reached regarding U.S. oil or liquefied natural gas.

The two sides also agreed to pursue more favorable tariffs on $30 billion of non-sensitive goods based on 2024 import data, including U.S. coal and agricultural products. The lists cover 77 categories of Chinese goods entering the United States and 1,619 categories of U.S. goods entering China. While the two sides have approved the product lists, future tariff reductions must still go through each country’s domestic legal procedures. According to China’s Commerce Ministry, the two governments would implement the reductions simultaneously after completing those procedures, but no effective date has been announced.

China’s Commerce Ministry said the arrangement would remove additional tariffs on more than 90% of the products covered. Those goods would instead be covered by each country’s standard tariff rate, known as the “most-favored-nation” rate.

The two countries separately extended their existing trade truce by two months, moving its expiration from November 10 to January 10. China’s commerce ministry said ⁠a two-month extension of a trade truce would provide room for both sides to evaluate their ongoing arrangement to resolve economic and trade issues, while considering how to advance on those fronts. Both sides will hold regular talks on potential investment opportunities and barriers, enhancing policy transparency and predictability, and responding to enterprises’ concerns. According to Treasury Secretary Bessent, he was unsure whether the two sides could reach a broader agreement, though the Chinese negotiators had proposed a larger deal. He said the United States was open to either continuing the existing arrangement or exploring a broader one.

Both sides have agreed on a communication channel for incidents relating to artificial intelligence and will hold a follow-up ​dialogue by the end of November. China agreed to examine and approve foreign financial services institutions, including those with U.S. capital, to conduct business and open branches in China.

In 2020, energy and commodities were at the center of the Phase One US-China trade deal, in which China agreed to increase U.S. imports by $200 billion. Actual purchases fell far short of the goal after the COVID pandemic took a toll on China’s economy and strained relations between the two countries. Despite China missing its soybean commitment in 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said China met its soybean-purchase commitment for this year but was behind schedule on other U.S. agricultural products.

Regarding critical minerals, the American Action Forum reports on China’s previous commitments: “In terms of China’s promise to restore critical mineral exports, the evidence is mixed. Looking at U.S. imports of a group of rare earths including cerium, scandium, and yttrium, it appears that the value and volume have not been suppressed and have recovered from last year’s dip. At the same time, U.S. imports of gallium, graphite, and a handful of other rare earths remain low, similar to during the trade war. One report confirms this, saying China continues to restrict exports of rare earths and rare earth magnets despite the U.S.-China trade truce. The Shipment’s analysis of Chinese export data also confirms that certain critical mineral exports to the United States have yet to recover.”

Conclusion

China has agreed to import at least 10 million metric tons of U.S. coal in both 2027 and 2028, about 2% of its coal imports, as the U.S. has the largest proven coal reserves. China is the world’s largest coal producer and importer and became a net importer of coal in 2009. Its coal pledge comes amid disappointing domestic production and uncertainty from its top overseas supplier, Indonesia. China’s imports from Indonesia have plummeted 25% so far this year as Indonesia seeks stricter management of its natural resource exports. While China has not always lived up to its agreements, it should be able to easily import 10 million tons of U.S. coal, since it imported over 12 million tons in 2024. No agreements were reached regarding U.S. oil or liquefied natural gas.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Trump’s Greenland Deal Improves America’s Critical Mineral Outlook

October 8, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Days after President Trump announced a security agreement with Greenland and Denmark, Greenland Mines applied to double the size of its rare earth mine in Greenland to supply magnet metals needed for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and defense systems. If approved, the North Carolina-based company’s Sarfartoq rare earth district in southwest Greenland would expand from 74 square miles to about 175 square miles.  Greenland Mines closed a deal for the Sarfartoq Rare Earths Project in southwest Greenland on September 1— just 17 days before President Trump’s new Greenland security deal was announced. President Trump and the leaders of Greenland and Denmark signed the agreement on September 22 that permits a larger U.S. military presence on Greenland — a strategically located, mineral-rich island roughly 3 times as large as Texas.  

According to the text of the security agreement, the United States can establish a “Golden Dome” defense system in Greenland ​as a shield against ballistic missile threats. President Trump said the agreement gives the US “permanent ⁠control over security and all other needs on that territory.” “No U.S. adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland anymore, or make sensitive investments there without our ​express written approval,” President Trump said. The shortest route from Europe to North America runs via the Arctic island, home to the northernmost U.S. military base. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the agreement as a deal that can “last forever” and said it underlines the importance of the NATO alliance and respects Greenland’s right to self-determination.

Greenland Mines is developing a rare earth neodymium and praseodymium project that could reduce the Western Hemisphere’s dependence on China for magnet rare earth minerals. China-based processors control at least 75% of the global market for all rare earth elements. The Greenland Mines project is expected to produce about one-third of the world’s neodymium-praseodymium oxide refined outside of China, serving as a major source of the rare earths needed for energy, transportation, and defense technologies. The project is estimated to be worth $2.05 billion.

China’s export restrictions on rare earths have driven prices up in the past year. China is the world’s dominant rare earths miner and refiner and last year agreed to delay export restrictions until November 10. Rare earths are likely to be discussed in President Trump’s meeting with China’s President Xi in Washington, D.C., with a potential extension of those export delays. The Trump administration ⁠had set January 2027 as a deadline to block imports of Chinese rare earths, but that goal is not likely to be met.

Under President Trump, rare earths are a national security priority. The Trump administration has supported and invested in domestic rare earth operations. It has spent billions of dollars on several companies to build a U.S. industry, including MP Materials, USA Rare Earth, and Energy Fuels. Since President Trump returned to office last year, U.S. output of the two most-commonly used rare earths has more than tripled, but the country can meet only 42% of its demand. And, in five years, the United States is still expected to rely on imports for nearly a quarter of its demand.

Rare earths, which are among the 60 minerals ‌considered critical by the U.S. government, must be processed before they are turned into magnets and other materials used to make weapons, automobiles, computers and other goods. The United States currently processes little of the heavy rare earths used in military applications, although its output of those minerals should increase by 2031. Rare earths processing is complex due to the chemical and mechanical difficulties of separating the 17 rare earths from each other.

U.S. rare earths companies are growing. Earlier this month, MP Materials began delivering magnets made from its own refined rare earths ​to General Motors as part of a deal ​made in 2021. Earlier this year, Energy Fuels agreed to buy a company that had built a major magnet facility in South Carolina. USA Rare Earth bought a Brazilian mine and a French processing plant. Startups, including Nth Cycle, Ucore Rare Metals, and others, ​have been experimenting with new ⁠ways to refine rare earths. Nth ​Cycle developed a technology it says can process rare earths and recently signed a $1 billion supply agreement with Glencore.

Some Chinese suppliers have begun holding back shipments to the United States for fear of offending the Chinese government. Ford ​Motor last year had to temporarily shutter U.S. factories after supplies of Chinese rare earths dried up.

Conclusion

Greenland Mines closed a deal for the Sarfartoq Rare Earths Project in southwest Greenland on September 1— just 17 days before President Trump’s new Greenland security deal was announced. On September 22, President Trump and the leaders of Greenland and Denmark signed a security agreement that permits a larger U.S. military presence on Greenland — a strategically located, mineral-rich island. Greenland Mines has now applied to double the size of its rare earth mine and, if approved, the North Carolina-based company’s Sarfartoq rare earth district would expand from 74 square miles to about 175 square miles. China dominates the rare earths industry, including its energy-intensive, complex processing. The Trump administration has spent billions developing the industry in the United States, but it will take time, leaving the United States reliant on China for these minerals needed for defense, energy, and electronics.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

President Trump Looks To California’s Coasts For New Oil Production

October 7, 2026 by Leave a Comment

The Trump Administration has announced plans for new offshore oil leases in California to boost U.S. energy security and jobs. The administration also helped a Texas firm restart a pipeline system in California that had been idled since 2015 when a rupture caused an oil spill. The pipeline will help move the oil to export terminals as California’s shrinking refinery industry will not be able to process the additional oil. Federal officials also recently took a step toward authorizing fracking on an oil platform 9 miles off Ventura County. California has some working offshore rigs, but there has been no new oil leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s and no new state leasing since before that. The state barred new offshore oil leases after an oil spill in 1969.

Oil producers in California are exploring plans to export heavy sour crude oil in 2027, as existing refineries cannot process it. Two California oil refineries (Phillips 66’s 139,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Los Angeles and Valero’s 145,000-barrel-per-day Benicia complex) closed within the last year, adding to the numerous earlier closures that have arisen due to California’s anti-oil and gas policies, including a goal of reducing gasoline use to one-tenth its current consumption by 2045. California’s gas taxes, boutique fuel-blend requirements, and other costly add-ons add over $1.60 per gallon to the national average price of gasoline sold in the state. California has also led the way in banning internal combustion engines and pushing drivers into electric vehicles. Together, these factors have reduced California’s refinery capacity to the point that it cannot handle additional oil sourced from the state.

State officials have tried to encourage more local oil production to stem the impact of refinery closures and moderate gas and diesel prices, despite the state’s anti-oil posture. Argus reports that earlier this year the state approved about 380 onshore oil drilling permits in Kern County to stabilize fuel supply. But so far, the new permits have not increased oil supply, as producers are wary about the future of oil production and processing in the state, which is promising an “oil-free future”.

Oil production in California has been in long-term decline, more than halving from its 2016 average to 246,000 barrels per day in the first half of 2026. Central California produces around 80% of the oil. According to Argus Media, producers are considering moving the heavy San Joaquin Valley oil along the 265-mile San Pablo pipeline system north to San Francisco and south to Los Angeles for loading onto waterborne tankers. Loadings at the terminals may be limited to partially full Aframax or Panamax tankers because of draft restrictions. The San Pablo Bay pipeline system shut down earlier this year, in part because of the refinery closures. The California Resources Corporation, the state’s largest producer, recently paid $63 million to purchase the pipeline system’s operator, Crimson Midstream Holdings.

The first export oil cargo may be available in the first quarter of 2027, with potential destinations being the Asia-Pacific region and Washington state—the latter if the Jones Act waiver is maintained, which would allow foreign ships to move the oil rather than more expensive U.S. ships. No oil produced in California has been exported via ship since at least 2016, when records began.

The Jones Act is a 1920 law requiring that goods be transported between American ports by U.S. vessels with U.S. crews. It was intended to grow the domestic shipping industry after World War I. However, it raised prices on all consumer goods, especially energy, by limiting the mobility of U.S. products between U.S. ports. President Trump issued his first 60-day waiver of the Jones Act on March 17, less than three weeks after the U.S.- Iran conflict started. The Trump administration extended the waiver in mid-May for another 90 days. The latest 90-day extension, which is more restrictive, should last until mid-November. The latest extension applies only to vessels hauling certain energy resources.

Conclusion

The Trump administration wants to increase oil production in federal waters off California’s coast. In addition to planning to offer new offshore leases, the administration has taken steps to authorize fracking on an offshore platform and helped a Texas firm restart a pipeline system that had been idled since 2015 due to an oil spill. No new oil leasing has occurred in federal waters off California since the mid-1980s. With recent refinery closures in California, oil producers are considering exporting oil to the Asia-Pacific region and to Washington state if President Trump continues to extend the Jones Act waiver, which would allow foreign tankers to ship the oil.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Trump’s New Fuel Standards Officially End Biden’s EV Mandate

October 6, 2026 by Leave a Comment

President Trump announced that he has approved new federal fuel economy standards, which will end a Biden-era mandate designed to push an increasing percentage of the American vehicle fleet to be electric. On September 28, 2026, the U.S. Transportation Department finalized lower vehicle fuel economy standards through 2031. President Trump said that the new standards will strip regulatory waste from the cost of building cars in the United States, lowering vehicle prices while increasing domestic car manufacturing. He also said that more than $100 billion in new investments is currently being used to build out domestic auto manufacturing.

Under President Biden, the government mandated rising fuel-efficiency standards to push automakers to build ​more electric vehicles as part of their climate plans with the United Nations.  The Biden administration increased required fuel efficiency for cars by ​8% annually for model years 2024 and 2025, 10% for 2026, and 2% annually for passenger cars and 4% for light trucks from 2027 to 2031. Under Biden’s standards, if automakers could not meet them, they had to pay a fine, which would raise auto costs for consumers. Automakers were also losing vast amounts of money on each electric vehicle they produced, and they passed those losses on to consumers of internal combustion vehicles, driving vehicle costs higher.

In December of 2025, the Trump ‌administration proposed retroactively revising down the 2022 model year fuel economy standard and then raising it between 0.25% and 0.5% annually through 2031—a more reasonable level that automakers are more likely to be able to meet. The Trump Transportation Department proposed a fleetwide average of 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031, down from 50.4 miles per gallon under ​Biden. It estimated its proposal would cut average ⁠new-vehicle costs by $1,300 per vehicle.

EV Manufacturing Under Biden’s Standards

While EV automaker Tesla remained profitable under the Biden standard because it sells only electric vehicles, American automakers—Ford, GM, and Stellantis—expanded their EV lines and incurred heavy losses. They have written down about $50 billion.

The Biden EV expansion required a large commitment to EV charging stations. Congress enacted the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program in 2021 as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, making $7.5 billion available to build thousands of electric charging stations.  NEVI was supposed to install more than 30,000 charging ports across the country; however, a June 2026 Congressional Research Service report found that hundreds, not thousands, were installed, noting 183 NEVI-funded charging stations across 20 states.

Total American EV sales reached a high of 437,487 vehicles in the third quarter of 2025, the last quarter when a generous federal tax credit for EV purchases was available. EV sales fell to 239,000 in the third quarter of 2026, nearly matching the average for the past four quarters.

Electric vehicles have fallen from 10% of the U.S. new-car market to 6%, despite significant technological improvements, according to Cox. The average EV range is now about 300 miles per charge, up 20% from 2021. At the same time, global battery pack prices have fallen by 21%. High gas prices usually encourage EV sales. While new EV sales have been relatively flat, the used EV market has risen, reaching a new high of 126,589 vehicles sold in the third quarter after initially dropping. Used electric vehicles, however, only account for about 3% of that market. But the reduced prices, coupled with ongoing improvements in electric vehicles, give them upward growth potential.

Most drivers will not buy a new vehicle because of temporary high pump prices; instead, when it’s time to buy, they consider their options. According to Cox, auto manufacturers are responding to current market demands with “more midsize and hybrid vehicles.” Hybrid vehicles offer better gas mileage and some EV-like features while still allowing motorists to keep their internal combustion engines, which alleviates the “range anxiety” of electric vehicles. Hybrid vehicles tend to be the winners in the current gas price situation.

Two tax credits for purchasing or leasing new electric vehicles both expired on September 30, 2025: the New Clean Vehicle Credit and the Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit. Before the tax credits expired, battery electric vehicles made up a record 12% of light-duty vehicle sales in September 2025. In the second quarter of this year, battery electric vehicles accounted for just 6% of new car purchases, while hybrid electric vehicles accounted for 16% of new vehicle purchases. Automakers have responded to consumer demand by offering more hybrid models.

Source: EIA

Conclusion

The Trump administration has revised the federal fuel economy standards, reversing the Biden-era mandates that required automakers to manufacture electric vehicles. The revised standards require a fleetwide average of 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031, down from 50.4 miles per gallon under Biden, cutting the average ⁠new vehicle cost by $1,300. Electric vehicles have fallen from 10% of the U.S. new-car market to 6% in the second quarter of 2026. U.S. consumers find hybrid electric vehicles more attractive than battery electric vehicles because they still offer the benefits of the internal combustion engine, and they represented 16% of new vehicle purchases in the second quarter of this year. Despite 2021 legislation that funded EV charging stations, a June 2026 Congressional Research Service report found that hundreds, not thousands, were installed.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

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: , , , ,
Next