Biden Administration Makes Good Harris’ Promise To Ban Single-Use Plastics

The Biden-Harris administration announced plans to phase out the use of single-use plastics from all federal operations by 2035, as part of its strategy to deal with plastic pollution. While this falls short of Vice-President Harris’s pledge to ban all single use plastics, it indicates she is serious about moving in that direction. The phase-out would start with a goal to end federal procurement of single-use plastics from food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027. It would cover outlets ranging from refreshment stands in federal parks to the massive feeding operations of the armed forces. The new goal would be met by selecting reusable, compostable, and highly recyclable products in lieu of single-use plastics in food service. The move comes after the Biden-Harris administration’s 2022 decision to phase out single-use plastics in national parks and public land. The Biden-Harris administration also unveiled a new strategy, detailed in an 83-page document, targeting plastic pollution at the stages of production, processing, use, and disposal.

According to the White House, the new procurement policies are the latest effort aimed at addressing plastic pollution that has included several policies to tackle fossil-fuel intensive polymer production, recycling and removing plastic that has washed up in oceans. The Biden-Harris Environmental Protection Agency has issued rules to limit emissions from the production of chemicals used to make plastic, and plans to spend $275 million to improve recycling infrastructure. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland has also issued Secretary’s Order 3407 to reduce single-use plastic products and packaging within the Department of the Interior, aiming for a phase-out by 2032. To promote this effort, the interior department is installing more water bottle filling stations on public lands and working with concessionaires to reduce single-use plastics. Vice President Kamala Harris has called for the banning of plastic straws.

Limiting plastics production and use is consistent with the Biden-Harris Administration’s opposition to oil and gas, from which plastics are made. The Administration has taken over 225 actions designed to make it more difficult or impossible to create more oil and gas. Since plastics are a building block of modern economies, focusing on plastic waste which is visible but for which the United States and other advanced countries are not primarily responsible would assist the Biden-Harris Administration in its stated goal to “end fossil fuels.”

The White house announcement comes ahead of the last scheduled round of negotiations toward a global treaty to end plastic pollution set to start in Busan, Korea on November 25. Countries are divided on whether the deal should include caps on plastic production. Under the Biden-Harris policy, the United States supports a goal to end plastic pollution by 2040 in the treaty, but it wants countries to set their own plans for doing so instead of setting global targets and goals, and to detail those plans in pledges sent regularly to the United Nations. The World Wildlife Fund has warned that unless governments reach an ambitious agreement with legally binding rules, global plastic pollution is set to triple by 2040. According to data from the United Nations (UN) Environment Program, at least 460 million metric tons of plastic are produced every year, equivalent to the weight of more than 300,000 blue whales. As the material breaks down, it creates microplastics — tiny particles smaller than five millimeters.

According to the White House fact sheet, plastic production and waste have doubled over the past two decades. Some environmental groups have indicated that given the purchasing power of the U.S. government, the move to phase-out single-use plastics in favor of reusable or compostable products would be significant. “The U.S. government is the world’s largest purchaser of goods and services, and its purchasing decisions can have a global impact,” said Plastics Campaign Director Christy Leavitt at Oceana. It is likely that providers of compostable or recyclable packaging would benefit from the economies of scale, theoretically bringing down the cost of such items, although this is conjecture. According to Oceana, some 33 billion pounds (15 million metric tons) of plastic enter the oceans every year, including single-use items like bottles, packaging, takeout containers and bags. The Biden-Harris administration has earmarked $70 million for removing plastic debris from U.S. coastal waters and the Great Lakes. The United States, however, is responsible for a very small portion of global ocean plastics pollution.  Studies have shown most plastics end up in the ocean from developing nations around the world who are still poor and have little recycling capability.

Restaurants’ Pilot Initiatives

The restaurant industry is also exploring ways of easing its reliance on single-use restaurant containers. Starbucks, KFC, Dunkin’ and Peet’s Coffee recently announced plans to pilot a reusable cups program in the city of Petaluma, California. Thirty restaurants will participate in a program where consumers will be provided free of charge with reusable cups. Once a cup is used, a patron leaves it at one of 60 reuse bins for sterilization and takes a fresh cup. The container can be used at any of the participating restaurants. Similar programs are in use in some markets outside of the United States. Starbucks has also initiated a program where domestic consumers use their own cups.  U.S. consumers use about 50 billion single-use cups per year, most of them from restaurants, according to the anti-litter group Center for the Circular Economy.

The Plastics Production Boom

The plastics industry experienced significant growth as the 20th century progressed. Innovations in plastic production yielded new plastic materials, such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene—each with their own set of unique properties and uses. This era of industrial production saw plastics become deeply integrated into the fabric of modern society. Plastics had qualities that made them appealing—durability, versatility, and low cost. And abundant fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, powered the explosion of plastic production.

Diverse Applications of Plastics

Due to their appealing qualities, plastics found their way into virtually every aspect of daily life. From the automotive industry to medical devices, plastics demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and fulfill a diverse range of needs. The material’s lightweight and easily shaped properties made it a staple in consumer products, commercial applications, construction, packaging, electronics, transportation and many other uses. An example of its versatility is polypropylene, a type of plastic found in products such as packaging and automotive parts. Celluloid, for example, provided a more ethical option for denture plates, sparing the use of human teeth, and revolutionized photography by replacing glass plates with flexible film. Single-use surgical gloves, syringes, insulin pens, IV tubes, and catheters have reduced the risk of patient infection and helped streamline operations by lifting the burden of sterilization.

Many state and local officials have bans on single-use plastic bags forcing shoppers to purchase reusable bags, often laden with viruses since many shoppers do not wash them frequently. During the coronavirus pandemic, many states and localities abandoned the ban on single-use plastic bags. Further, it was found that reuseable bags were more carbon intensive than single use bags and created more waste.  And of course, any reuse of products exposed to food products increases the risk of contamination by rodents and insects searching for food.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris administration announced plans to phase out the use of single-use plastics from all federal operations by 2035, starting with a goal to end federal procurement of single-use plastics from food service operations, events, and packaging by 2027.  This announcement was a precursor to an international treaty with the next meeting scheduled for November. The plastics boom came in the 20th century spurred by cheap and abundant fossil fuels and was found to have diverse uses. Single-use plastics not only aid food preservation but have numerous medical uses and have reduced the risk of patient infection. With their versatility and many uses, it would be beneficial for states and countries, instead of banning these products, to figure out a better way to dispose of them or recycle them.


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

Tim Walz Worse On Energy Than California’s Gavin Newsom

Tim Walz, V.P. Kamala Harris’s choice as her vice presidential running mate and Governor of Minnesota, has one of the most extreme state-level records on “clean energy” in the United States, rivaling Governor Newsom in California. In 2023, Walz signed into law a target for Minnesota to get 100 percent of its power from zero-carbon sources by 2040, having signed legislation prioritizing the creation of “greener” plants in areas that previously featured fossil-fuel plants.  Coal has since fallen behind renewables and nuclear as the state’s top source of power. He set aside $2 billion in grants for “clean energy” projects in the state—a local version of Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. In June, he signed legislation expected to cut a full year off the time it takes to get permits to build energy and grid transmission projects. As a member of Congress, he voted in favor of carbon-pricing legislation and pitched it to skeptical constituents in Minnesota as a new way to squeeze profit out of farmland.

Walz’s climate plan includes a goal of increasing the share of electric cars on Minnesota roads to 20 percent by 2030 from the current 1 percent, setting stricter limits in vehicle emissions; reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030; and achieving a zero net carbon emissions goal by 2050Minnesota is one of 17 states that have tied their vehicle emission standards to California’s rules rather than federal regulations that are less strict. He has also proposed completely banning liquid transportation fuels by 2050. Minnesota’s “clean transportation standard” (CTS) would ban all liquid fuels including gasoline, diesel, ethanol, and Minnesota’s homegrown biofuels. A study from Stillwater Associates found that such an energy policy in Minnesota would be responsible for raising gas prices by as much as 94 cents per gallon by 2030 and up to $1.05 per gallon by 2040. Diesel prices under the policy could rise by $3.61 cents per gallon by 2030 and over $4 per gallon by 2040.

Background

In a campaign announcement in 2022, Walz unveiled a 69-page plan for fighting climate change that he pledged would be a priority in a second term if voters reelected him. Politico reports that “it took Governor Tim Walz all of a month after being sworn into a second term to sign a sweeping clean energy bill that put in place one of the Midwest’s most progressive climate policies.” Walz came to the governor’s mansion with a history of pitching skeptical voters on climate action. His carbon-free energy standard was made possible by Democrats flipping the state Senate in November 2022 and giving the party a political trifecta for the first time in nearly a decade, passing it with a one-vote margin. The vote to pass the measure was along straight party lines and opposed by Republicans. Critics outside the state including Walz’s GOP neighbor, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, continue to threaten to sue Minnesota over its energy policies.

North Dakota officials and leaders in the state’s coal industry are pushing for carbon capture and storage to qualify as an eligible technology under Minnesota’s carbon-free standard, a key part of that state’s climate law. The North Dakota Industrial Commission, a three-member panel led by Burgum, filed formal comments with Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission in June 2024, expressing concerns about the Minnesota law’s constitutionality and stating that carbon capture “must be recognized as a ‘carbon-free energy technology.’”

Before the November 2022 midterm election, Walz championed climate reforms on his own, via executive order. In 2021, the state adopted California’s clean cars rule. Despite his anti-internal-combustion-vehicle policies, Walz rides in a gas-fueled SUV, claiming that it is for security reasons. Before needing the protection of an SUV, however, the governor drove an immaculately restored 1979 International Scout. The Scout averages less than 12 miles per gallonAccording to the Center of the American Experiment, Walz’s ownership of the 1970s gas guzzler is emblematic of a Democratic-run state “where rioting and looting are given tacit approval, and where liberal politicians happily impose more costs on Minnesota families for purchasing vehicles while tooling around town in one of the least fuel-efficient cars around.”

Walz said at a 2023 event, “I have to tell you, when I hear people say, ‘You’re moving too fast’ — we can’t move too fast when it comes to addressing climate change.” His climate plan requires utilities to produce 100 percent carbon-free energy in just 15 years. In 2023, he promoted a prototype electric firetruck that an Austrian company is producing in Wyoming, Minnesota, calling it “the future of firefighting.” The trucks cost between $1.6 million and $1.8 million–about twice as much as a regular fire truck.  According to Republican VP Candidate, J.D. Vance, Walz is just a “San Francisco-style liberal.”

Conclusion

Harris has chosen a candidate whose approach to energy more closely resembles her long-term vision for the United States. Minnesota produces no oil, natural gas, or coal, and Walz’s signature legislation requires utilities to produce 100 percent carbon-free energy in just 15 years. Walz’s policies and implementation resemble the Biden-Harris administration’s Inflation Reduction Act philosophy: Use a combination of regulation and public spending to force “clean energy” on Americans as a supposed driver of economic growth and job creation. Walz is an experienced practitioner of the jobs-centric climate policy that Harris is seeking to defend and his record shows he knows how to sell it to his constituents. It will be interesting to see how Walz sells his clean transportation standard given that Minnesota’s biofuel industry is one of the largest in the country. The protection of farm-related jobs could outweigh concerns about the carbon and land footprint of biofuels.


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

Deseret News: In Utah Senate race, Curtis and Gleich clash over climate solutions as environmental groups pick sides

Rep. John Curtis and his opponent in Utah’s open U.S. Senate race, outdoor activist Caroline Gleich, want you to know that even though they both want to protect the environment, they support very different pathways to get there.

But their shared focus on climate policy has divided the support of Washington, D.C., interest groups on what is typically a Democrat-dominated issue.

[…]

But it would be a stretch to say Curtis enjoys complete support from the energy industry.

The American Energy Alliance, a “conservative energy advocacy group,” spent $100,000 to oppose Curtis in June because of his support for the PROVE IT Act, which would commission a study to calculate the United States’ manufacturing emissions compared to other countries. Curtis introduced the House version of the bill in July. Some conservatives have criticized the bill as a step toward taxing carbon emissions.

While Curtis shied away from a focus on climate during the Republican primary, his tenure in Congress has been characterized by steps taken to give conservatives a seat at the table in climate conversations.


Read the full article at Deseret News.

E&E News: Tim Walz’s energy record: Political asset or liability?

Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice Tuesday of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate is spiking enthusiasm among climate-focused progressives — and fossil fuel supporters backing former President Donald Trump.

Walz, a 60-year-old former school teacher and football coach with military experience, has a long energy record that is under renewed scrutiny from both the right and left.

[…]

But the same Walz energy policies that are animating the left have Trump allies prepping new attacks.

“This is just a doubling down on Biden’s and Harris’ bad energy policies,” Tom Pyle, president of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance, said of Walz. “We’re actually kind of excited about it.”

“He’s just weird, especially when it comes to energy policy,” Pyle said.


Read the full article at E&E News.

The Unregulated Podcast #193: Moderately Weird

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna go over a “weird” week in Washington as twists and turns drive the 2024 election.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Kamala Flip Flops on Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ claim that she no longer supports a ban on fracking contrasts with what she said five years ago. Just before she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race in 2019 and joined President Joe Biden’s ticket, at a CNN town hall, she made it clear that she very much supports banning hydraulic fracturing (fracking}. She said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking and starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right?” “And then there has to be legislation, but, yes, that’s something I’ve taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue.” That same year, she cosponsored Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, which also includes a ban on fracking. “Climate change is real, and it poses an existential threat to us as human beings, and it is within our power to do something about it,” she said. “I am supporting the Green New Deal.”  The reality is that banning fracking would impact billions of dollars in revenue, destroy thousands of jobs and drive up the cost of everything, as the Department of Energy estimates 95 percent of all new wells are hydraulically fractured. 

The major environmental groups are silent on their preferred candidate’s flip-flop to embrace fracking. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Sunrise Movement have not acknowledged the switch. Further Senators Bob Casey and Martin Heinrich from Pennsylvania and New Mexico, respectively, two states that benefit from fracking, are also silent on the flip flop. A fracking ban does not sell well in working-class areas, especially in Pennsylvania, which is the second largest natural gas producing state after Texas.

Where is Harris on banning plastic straws made from petroleum and banning offshore drilling? She has supported banning both in the past. Will she also flip-flop on these issues or stay the course? Does she still support a carbon tax, which would drive up the cost of 80 percent of the energy used in the United States? How about the billions of dollars for electric school buses she has so passionately supported in the past, now that the real costs and performance of them has become exposed?

As President Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris strongly supported every anti-energy order from the White House. Harris’ campaign wants Americans to believe that she has simply changed her position on a major issue facing our economy 100 days before an election. Unfortunately, Kamala Harris has not undergone a primary where she would be put to the test to explain where she stands on all the issues on which she has flip-flopped. Besides fracking, she no longer supports abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, no longer supports mandatory gun buybacks, and no longer supports banning private health insurance. Further, she also has avoided interviews with reporters where she could be asked her stance on issues. Harris has been gifted the nomination on a silver platter by President Joe Biden and has not had to earn it by taking her case to Democratic primary voters where she would have been forced to go on record on these issues so that primary voters could hold her accountable.  Since energy availability and reliability are so central to the nation’s economy, inflation and household budgets, as well as critical to our national security, these questions deserve answers. 

The Biden-Harris Record

The Biden-Harris administration has used every regulatory tool available to curtail oil and gas production. Days after taking office, President Biden imposed a moratorium on new lease sales on federal lands. After this was blocked in court, his Administration slow-walked drilling permits and auctions. The Environmental Protection Agency tightened methane regulations, increasing production costs and making some wells uneconomic. The White House also directed federal agencies to incorporate climate estimates in environmental reviews so they can block fossil-fuel projects solely because of carbon dioxide emissions.  

The Biden-Harris administration has also sought to reduce demand for oil and gas with rules that effectively mandate more electric vehicles, bar new natural gas power plants, and phase out natural gas appliances. It has paused permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. It has also incentivized renewable energy through the Democrat-passed Inflation reduction Act to make fossil fuels less competitive.  Meanwhile, in order to justify enormously expensive regulations, it raised the “Social Cost of Carbon” from about $4 per ton to over $190 per ton.  The higher the social cost of carbon, the more the Biden-Harris administration can argue that its policies stifling production and use of energy from fossil fuels make economic sense. 

The Biden-Harris administration’s Environmental Protection Agency will be putting out new regulations for existing gas power plants after the election, which will likely force them to close. It has floated designating Texas’s Permian Basin in violation of ozone standards, which would require substantial reductions in production, driving up energy prices. Does Candidate Kamala Harris support these pending rules, as she has all the other regulations of the Biden-Harris administration?

President Biden has committed to a carbon free electric grid by 2035, which is still about 60 percent powered by natural gas and coal. So far, the Biden-Harris administration has not been successful in forcing enough intermittent wind and solar power on the grid to scale back much of the current fossil fuel contribution, no less provide enough new capacity to deal with the onslaught of new demand on the grid from artificial intelligence data centers and the new demand from the Biden-Harris regulations and standards impacting electric vehicles, heat pumps, and electric appliances. In fact, despite building more wind turbines under the subsidies in the Biden-Harris climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, wind energy dropped last year for the first time since 1998, and recently hit a 33 month low.  A Harris administration will have 4 years to do the work that will make the U.S. power grid expensive, unreliable and similar to the electric supply of third world countries. That will ruin the U.S. economy that needs inexpensive and abundant energy to grow. 

Conclusion

Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris is flip-flopping on many issues that she strongly supported during the Democratic primary leading to the 2020 election, where she was very unpopular with Democrat voters. Now, she has been handed a gift by President Biden so that she does not have to state where she stands on many important issues and can have her campaign conveniently flip-flop on them. She has avoided undergoing a primary, where she was not very popular in 2020 and she is currently avoiding one-one interviews. However, her record during the Biden-Harris administration is clear. She supported all of Biden’s regulations and executive orders. She voted for the Inflation Reduction Act that had no Republican vote. Is her switch on issues now just an election year ploy to get elected to the U.S. Presidency to spend the next 4 years doing all she can to destroy the current U.S. energy system and thereby the U.S. economy?

China Owns Kamala’s “Renewable” Future

Construction of U.S. solar-manufacturing plants by Chinese companies is surging, putting China in position to dominate the industry, as other American factories struggle to compete despite federal subsidies.  Chinese companies will have at least 20 gigawatts’ worth of annual solar panel production capacity on U.S. soil within the next year, enough to serve about half the U.S. market. The group includes seven companies backed by Chinese firms including Jinko Solar, Trina Solar, JA Solar, Longi, Hounen, Runergy, and Boviet. Chinese-backed companies have advantages over U.S. competitors due to heavily subsidized supply chains for raw polysilicon and unfinished solar modules and low-cost government financing. They also collect U.S. subsidies for “clean” energy manufacturing embedded in the 2022 Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The projected rapid increase in U.S. solar panel production by Chinese-owned companies should represent a concern for the Biden-Harris climate agenda. While the administration is looking for new investment that creates U.S. jobs in “clean” energy, the Biden-Harris administration wants to prevent over-reliance on China as it pushes the U.S. economy to transition to renewable energy. Renewable energy and other supposedly “clean” technology that is being pushed on U.S. consumers is China’s strength that it has been developing over decades to lead the world in their manufacture. Part of China’s advantage is its reliance upon cheap coal-fired electricity, consuming over half of the world’s annual consumption.

Chinese Influence on U.S. Solar Manufacturing

Chinese companies, by far the top suppliers of solar and electric-vehicle battery components imported to the United States, are accounting for one-fifth of the solar factories announced since the United States adopted new climate-justified subsidies. The United States put tariffs on Chinese solar products and banned goods linked to China’s Xinjiang region over concerns about forced labor to try to develop a domestic solar manufacturing industry. It is now considering new duties on components made in other Asian countries where Chinese manufacturers have established facilities.

Chinese companies building factories in the United States so far are mainly investing in module production, in which solar cells imported from Asia are assembled into panels. Longi, the world’s third-biggest solar producer, for example, is producing solar panels in Pataskala, Ohio through a joint venture with U.S. solar developer Illuminate USA. The five-gigawatt plant is among the largest announced since passage of the IRA, and the company is also exploring the possibility of building a cell facility. Illuminate USA is an American company, majority owned by Invenergy, who owns both the facility and the land in Ohio where over 1,000 Americans will be working to assemble more than nine million high-quality solar panels annually later this year.

Trina, the No. 4 global manufacturer, plans to start a five-gigawatt panel factory in Texas this year, and is also planning a cell facility. Trina’s U.S. subsidiary is a U.S.-registered company that sources the polysilicon it uses to produce its equipment from European and U.S. sources.

U.S. solar project developers that are interested in low-cost supply are welcoming the Chinese companies. The American Clean Power Association, a trade group, said the U.S. solar-manufacturing sector is attracting global and domestic investment and U.S.-headquartered companies make up most of the operating and planned panel production.

Top U.S. producers, Hanwha Qcells and Arizona-based First Solar, however, are pushing for the United States to impose new tariffs on component and equipment imports from countries where their Chinese rivals have built factories to supply the United States. “We’re just asking for legitimate U.S. manufacturers to have a chance to compete with these gigantic Chinese-owned companies,” said Tim Brightbill, attorney for the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Trade Committee. The group’s rivals argue that placing duties on some cell imports and not others is unfair and will stifle construction of U.S. factories.

Non-Chinese Solar Manufacturing Cannot Compete

Non-Chinese manufacturers in the United States have found it hard to compete against cheap Chinese imports and are worried by China’s large U.S. presence. It is estimated that as many as half of the announced U.S. factories may not materialize. U.S.-based Convalt, for example, is struggling to bring online 10 gigawatts of U.S. capacity at a factory it started building in upstate New York in 2022. Convalt’s plant would make panels plus solar cells, wafers and ingots that go into the panels, but progress stalled a year ago as global panel prices plunged 50 percent to levels below Convalt’s cost of production.

The Biden-Harris Department of Energy said that developing a domestic solar supply chain would take time and that the United States must rely on foreign businesses for their expertise.

Conclusion

It is difficult to imagine how a greenfield manufacturer can produce solar panels as quickly as a Chinese manufacturer, who has all the advantages, including heavily subsidized supply chains for raw polysilicon and unfinished solar modules and low-cost government financing. The Biden administration needs to realize that the best situation for America is to develop its massive fossil fuel resources for which China depends and must import from the United States or another large producer, such as Russia or OPEC. China has been working on developing its “clean” energy technologies for decades to become the leader in their manufacture and to have the world dependent on them. And, it seems to be working!


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

Whoever Is Calling The Shots At The White House Takes Another Swing At Alaska

The Biden-Harris administration is considering further restricting oil development in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), the nation’s largest swath of public land. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be soliciting public comment on whether to expand or designate new “special areas” in the 23-million-acre reserve. The move could extend the areas of the NPR-A that are mostly off limits to drillers and stymie new exploration for oil in the western Arctic. BLM claims it is protecting caribou and herd health, as well as other wildlife, migratory birds, and native plants. The evaluation is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s attempts to dampen oil and gas activity in the Arctic to appease environmentalists following its 2023 approval of the $8 billion Willow oil project in the national reserve. The Biden-Harris administration has targeted Alaska’s resource development opportunities 65 times, affecting the state’s energy and economic future. The Biden-Harris administration has kowtowed to environmentalists in an attempt to gain favor at the ballot box.

The NPR-A, which is an area the size of the State of Indiana, has experienced limited drilling since it was created in 1923 as a potential oil supply for the U.S. Navy. In recent years, the reserve has garnered increasing interest due to the discovery of deposits that could hold millions of barrels of oil and help reverse Alaska’s declining oil production. Oil revenues support the state’s economy and contribute to jobs and annual dividends to its citizens.  Oil and gas jobs represent about one quarter of all state jobs, and generate about half of the state’s economy, while providing as much as 90 percent of state unrestricted General Fund revenues in most years and accounting for over $180 billion in total revenue since statehood.

Along the reserve’s eastern border, and near Alaska’s prolific North Slope oil fields, companies are tapping into large oil deposits. The Willow project is expected to produce up to 750 million barrels of oil, and ConocoPhillips has expressed confidence that more oil likely lies deeper into the reserve. An Australian company, 88 Energy, is also exploring a potential 1.6-billion-barrel oil discovery in NPR-A called the Peregrine prospect. The rising oil activity in the NPR-A, however, has heightened calls for greater limits on drilling from environmental groups, who have always opposed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) into which oil would flow.

A day before approving the Willow project last year, the Biden-Harris administration announced sweeping regulatory changes for additional protections in special areas of the NPR-A, making drilling and exploration more difficult but not banning them outright. The new rules, finalized in April, allow BLM to reevaluate the boundaries of special areas and consider new ones. BLM’s recent solicitation marks the beginning of the first of those evaluations. BLM  also plans to consult with local people about the special areas and it has sent invitations to consult with Alaska Native Villages and Corporations, but a group of North Slope cities, tribes and Alaska Native corporations is already challenging previous federal restrictions on oil development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

Roughly half of the NPR-A is already designated as special areas, and in some locations there are bars on drilling infrastructure or limits on new oil leasing. That includes an expansive wetland around the Teshekpuk Lake that supports caribou herds and migratory birds, which are common on Alaska’s North Slope.

ConocoPhillipsAlaska Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) and a nonprofit representing Alaska’s North Slope Iñupiat sued to block the Biden administration’s NPR-A rules. The state argues that the Biden administration is “dramatically” changing the way the reserve is managed. The reserve’s management is governed by the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, which orders the Interior Department to balance oil development with other values like conservation, wildlife protection and subsistence hunting. In response to the oil and gas industry’s interest in the NPR-A, the Trump administration in 2020 opened most of the reserve to exploration. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration reversed that decision.

According to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, “This latest maneuver by BLM regarding Alaska’s Petroleum Reserve is indicative of BLM’s continuing refusal to manage the Petroleum Reserve as Congress directed. Rather than follow Congress’s direction for ‘expeditious’ development of the Petroleum Reserve, the current administration — in its effort to appease Lower 48 environmental activists — is seeking to set aside large swaths as off-limits to any development.”

NPR-A Lawsuit

A coalition of North Slope local and regional governments, tribal governments and Native corporations has sued the Biden-Harris administration in the U.S. District Court in Anchorage for prohibitive environmental protections President Biden placed on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).The NPR-A lawsuit, filed by the organization Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, claims that the rule enacted by the Department of the Interior on April 19 should be invalidated because it resulted from a flawed process. The rule was enacted improperly because of several legal shortcomings, including the agency’s failure to conduct a full environmental impact statement, the diversion from four decades of NPR-A management that emphasized oil development and a lack of “meaningful” engagement with the people of the North Slope. The lawsuit claims the rule “turns vast swaths of the NPR-A into a de facto conservation system unit.” The new rule was proposed by the Bureau of Land Management last September and finalized in April. The group says the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental restrictions threaten to reverse progress that has improved their lives.

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

Put in service in 1977, the 800-mile pipeline is the primary way to carry oil drilled on Alaska’s North Slope to ports, refineries and pipelines farther south. It is the lifeline of the state’s industry crisscrossing the state’s rugged terrain and keeping oil from freezing in frigid temperatures.  So far, the pipeline has transported 18.7 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime. Oil flow through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System however, averaged around 470,000 barrels a day last year. The 48-inch pipeline is capable of transiting 2 million barrels per day, and once did, from Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free port of Valdez for shipping to the continental United States. At its peak, in the late 1980s, about 2 million barrels a day flowed through the line. The pipeline is looking for additional oil supplies to keep it operating since it has about 1.5 million barrels per day of available capacity. Oil production in the NPR-A can keep the pipeline viable and provide decades of oil for American consumers if the Biden-Harris administration gets out of the way. Opponents of the pipeline have sought to reduce oil produced on the North Slope, in hopes of an early closure.  President Biden was one of only 5 U.S. Senators to vote against the final pipeline conference report 51 years ago in 1973, which passed 80-5.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris administration is doing all it can to restrict new development of oil and gas in the United States despite having a wealth of those resources here and particularly in Alaska. The Biden-Harris Administration has fought economic development in Alaska beginning with its refusal to honor the law that opened ANWR, denying the state access to their own mineral lands and closing opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In doing so, the Biden-Harris administration is depriving Americans of their public wealth, increasing energy prices and spurring on inflation.


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

Candidate Profile: Kamala Harris on Energy

President Biden ended his reelection campaign on Sunday, July 21, under mounting pressure from Democrats following his poorly received debate performance. By endorsing Harris, he has positioned her as the frontrunner to succeed him. However, there is still some degree of uncertainty looming as Democrats hurriedly work to assemble a new 2024 ticket before the party’s convention on August 19-22 in Chicago.  

Harris’ stance on energy, both during her tenure as a senator and as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, was to the left of Biden’s, leaning more towards far-left positions that favor government control and political direction of energy production.  In her 2019 platform, she outlined climate goals that surpassed those of the current administration, aiming to achieve a renewable reliant economy by 2045. Her plan proposed that new buses, heavy-duty vehicles, and vehicle fleets must be zero-emission by 2030, with all vehicles mandated to be 100 percent zero-emission by 2035.

Fracking Bans

As a candidate for president in 2020, she advocated for a ban on hydraulic fracturing.  Furthermore, during her tenure as California’s attorney general, Harris filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Interior Department in 2016, challenging potential fracking activities off the state’s coastline and describing the practice as a “threat to the health and well-being of California communities.” 

The shale revolution has profoundly changed American energy production. Through hydraulic fracturing, precise drilling techniques, and private ownership of subsurface resources in strategic regions, the United States has emerged as a global energy leader.  

According to a 2015 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas,” the U.S. shale boom significantly lowered natural gas prices. The report estimated an annual welfare gain of $48 billion from 2007 to 2013, a substantial figure given that retail spending on natural gas totaled around $160 billion in 2013. This economic impact represented approximately one-third of one percent of the gross domestic product, equivalent to about $150 per capita.  The reduced prices of natural gas facilitated its displacement of coal in the U.S. energy mix. In 2023, carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 3 percent, continuing a consistent decline in U.S. emissions observed over the past 15 years.  

The benefits of the shale boom extend to royalty payments for individuals and families, as well as substantial economic advantages for local and regional economies. For every million dollars of new oil and gas extraction, there is an associated $80,000 increase in wage income, $132,000 in royalty payments and business incomes, and the creation of 0.85 jobs within the local economy. These economic impacts are magnified threefold when considered across the broader region.  According to a recent report by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and natural gas industry supports 0.8 million jobs across all 50 states, both full-time and part-time. This workforce accounts for 5.4 percent of the nation’s total employment and contributes nearly $1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy annually.

Green New Deal

Harris was also an early supporter and original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a resolution initially proposed in 2019 by progressive Democrats such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts.  The Green New Deal (GND) comprises a range of policy proposals aimed at addressing what is claimed to be a climate crisis, with a central goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 in various iterations. 

While proponents of the GND claim it aims to address energy, environmental, and climate concerns, its policies are predicted to bring no economic benefits while imposing significant economic costs. Historical data on energy consumption, economic growth, employment, income levels, and poverty suggest that the GND would have adverse effects across all of these dimensions. In particular, reducing reliance on conventional energy sources will stall economic growth and increase poverty by limiting opportunities in energy production. The estimated annual cost of implementing the GND’s electricity mandate alone is projected at $490.5 billion annually, impacting households unevenly across states.  Transitioning to “clean” electricity is expected to require extensive land use and may increase greenhouse gas emissions from backup power generation. The unreliability of intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar power would jeopardize electricity grid stability and lead to widespread blackouts. Beyond energy concerns, the GND’s broader costs will be approximately $9 trillion per year, excluding costs from shifts in the transportation sector and environmental damages. The proposal to fund the GND through money creation is dismissed as likely to cause inflation and devalue currency, further straining economic stability and reducing investments in environmental protection over time. 

Climate Equity

In conjunction with her support for the GND, Harris also supported several pieces of legislation that would expand the federal bureaucracy in the name of advancing “climate equity.”  In 2020, Harris proposed the Climate Equity Act, which aimed to create a new independent Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability.  

In practice, the current administration’s approach to “equity” consisted of transferring hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’s own environmental justice advisors.  Just days into his presidency in 2021, Biden issued an executive order to create his environmental justice advisory council. This council operates under the EPA, includes four designated federal officers from the agency, and holds authority to advise both the White House Council on Environmental Quality and an interagency council consisting of various Cabinet secretaries.

The Washington Free Beacon reviewed a database of federal grants and found that four prominent environmental justice organizations — WE ACT for Environmental Justice, the Bullard Center for Environmental & Climate Justice at Texas Southern University, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, and Kean University’s Center for the Urban Environment — collectively received $229 million in grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, they were designated as partners to recipients of another $200 million in grants. Leaders from these organizations serve on the White House’s Environmental Justice Advisory Council, housed within the EPA, the agency responsible for awarding these grants. According to the White House, the council provides “independent advice and recommendations on how to address current and historic environmental injustice.”  Peggy Shepard, executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, chairs the council. Other council members include Robert Bullard from the Bullard Center, Beverly Wright from the Deep South Center, and Nicky Sheats from the Center for the Urban Environment.  

Except for the Center for the Urban Environment, all of these organizations are linked to Mike Bloomberg’s Beyond Petrochemicals initiative, an $85 million campaign launched in 2022. They have also received substantial funding from Jeff Bezos’s Earth Fund and other progressive funding channels.  Large firms run by people like Bezos and Bloomberg stand to benefit from complex environmental regulations. Regulations often either directly restrict competition, or indirectly imposes a greater burden on smaller businesses as they have fewer resources to comply with new rules.  The Free Beacon’s investigation concluded that these revelations raise concerns about the oversight of the Biden-Harris administration’s allocation of significant environmental grants because of the close ties between the EPA’s environmental justice efforts and these organizations.

In addition to her Environmental Equity Act, then-Senator Harris also introduced legislation titled the Environmental Justice for All Act. This too would have seen hundreds of millions of tax-dollars go to radical foundations and nonprofits aligned with Harris’ politics. However, it goes much further by targeting American energy producers with new taxes and fees. The proceeds of these new punitive taxes would go to further grantmaking for the very organizations attempting to put American energy workers out of jobs. On top of the traditional spending spree and new taxes, this bill would create new programs seeking to enact “reparations” to communities most “impacted” by climate change. One such program proposed in the bill is to fund the creation of make-up and other cosmetic products exclusively for “women of color” all in the name of fighting climate change.

Electric Vehicle Mandates

Vice President Harris has also been a consistent supporter of the Biden administration’s unpopular EV mandates.  During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris pledged ambitious climate policies.  She aimed for 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles sold to be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030, and a complete transition to 100 percent EVs by 2035. Additionally, she supported a mandate that by 2030, all new vehicle purchases for corporate fleets, transportation networks, and heavy-duty vehicles must be electric.

Back in January 2019, months after announcing her presidential bid, Harris cosponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Initially targeting 43 percent of car sales to be electric by 2027, the bill evolved to set a goal of 100 percent electric car sales by 2035.  In contrast, the Biden administration’s current approach includes finalized standards that aim for 56 percent of new light-duty car sales to be battery-electric and 13 percent hybrid by 2032. For heavy-duty vehicles under these standards, fewer than half of trucks produced in 2032 are expected to be electric.

A recent poll conducted by the Remington Research Group, commissioned by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, revealed that in key states such as Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — pivotal for determining the election outcome — 59 percent or more of likely voters oppose government bans on gas-powered cars.

Bans On Plastic

Harris has also supported bans on plastic straws and single use plastics even though these policies routinely fail to provide any sort of meaningful benefit to the environment.  For example, in 2020, New Jersey enacted legislation prohibiting single-use plastic and paper bags in all stores and food service businesses, which took effect in May 2022 and was applauded by environmental groups. Despite a reduction of over 60 percent in the total number of plastic bags to 894 million, the switch to alternative bags led to a significant increase in the state’s plastic consumption, soaring nearly threefold from 53 million pounds to 151 million pounds. 

Most stores in New Jersey adopted heavier, reusable shopping bags made from non-woven polypropylene, which require over 15 times more plastic and generate more than five times the greenhouse gas emissions during production per bag compared to polyethylene plastic bags. Moreover, these alternative bags are not widely recyclable and typically lack post-consumer recycled materials. Greenhouse gas emissions surged by 500 percent compared to the previous bags used in 2015, adding to consumer expenses for reusable bags at a time when economic pressures from inflation were already affecting grocery budgets.

AEA Congressional Scorecard

Senator Kamala Harris received a lifetime score of 0 percent from the American Energy Alliance’s Energy Scorecard.

2019 – 2020 votes:  

2017 – 2018 votes: 

The Unregulated Podcast #192: Meritocracy and Freedom

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna cover the fallout of the Kamala Coup, recent bombshell proceedings in Congress, and what it all means for the 2024 presidential election.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show: