Trump Administration Saves Rate Payers From Costly Offshore Wind Boondoggle

The Trump administration reached a deal with French energy producer TotalEnergies in which it would return almost $1 billion to end its offshore wind farm projects in the United States. The $928 million reimbursement, which was what TotalEnergies paid for project leases, would instead be invested in U.S. oil and gas projects. According to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over, and the era of affordable, reliable and secure energy is here to stay.”

TotalEnergies will forfeit its leases in federal waters for two wind farms, purchased during the Biden administration, which would have been built off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. The larger of the two wind farms planned by TotalEnergies, known as Attentive Energy, would have been built 54 miles south of Jones Beach, N.Y., providing over 1,300 megawatts of wind capacity to N.Y. and New Jersey. The smaller wind project, Carolina Long Bay, would have been located 22 miles south of Bald Head Island, North Carolina.

Instead, the company would invest the money in oil and gas projects in the United States, including the development of four trains at the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Texas, upstream oil and gas production, and new power plantsAccording to Patrick Pouyanné, chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO of TotalEnergies, “These investments will contribute to supplying Europe with much-needed LNG from the U.S. and provide gas for U.S. data center development. We believe this is a more efficient use of capital in the United States.”

Northeast Governors are Turning to Natural Gas

As the Trump administration has hindered offshore wind projects, Democratic governors in the Northeast are increasingly supporting natural gas projects to address rising energy costs, a shift from a previous focus solely on renewable energy, as seen from Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont. These northeast states are forced to seek other energy sources.

According to E&E News, Governor Hochul has pivoted to an “all of the above” energy strategy due to President Trump’s opposition to offshore wind. Delays to the development of offshore wind off New York’s coast could force the state to repower natural gas plants to serve the New York City region. Recently, Hochul has voiced concern that state climate goals were “unrealistic,” and has floated plans to soften state emissions targets.

According to The New Republic, at a press conference held by Governor Healey to address concerns around spiking utility bills, she indicated that the state needed to import more fracked gas from out of state. She referenced a $300 million project to increase natural gas infrastructure in the state via Enbridge’s Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline. For years, Massachusetts has blocked gas pipelines that could have alleviated spiraling energy prices long ago. Healey has bragged about stopping two gas pipelines from entering the state while she was attorney general.

In Connecticut, which was also looking into offshore wind, spiking electric prices have also changed the rhetoric. “Connecticut is committed to ensuring that our electric grid is reliable, resilient and that our energy costs become more affordable,” Rob Blanchard, director of communications for Governor Lamont, wrote in a statement. “Offshore wind and other renewables are central to that effort, but it must be complemented by a diverse mix of resources, including nuclear power, natural gas, hydropower, and other technologies.… We will continue to engage with the federal government on shared energy priorities.”

The deal with TotalEnergies also leaves New Jersey without any feasible offshore wind projects, as Democratic Governor Mikie Sherrill is looking for more “clean energy.” Sherrill’s predecessor, Phil Murphy, had approved a series of offshore wind projects that ran into financial and/or permitting challenges. The state approved Attentive Energy’s project in early 2024 as part of an attempt to reset the industry, which was already in trouble due to escalating costs and legal challenges.

Analysis

According to TotalEnergies, it made the deal because offshore wind was “not the most affordable way to produce electricity” and would require federal subsidies that the Trump administration is phasing out. The deal saves taxpayers years of subsidy payments that would have been due if the projects had been completed in accordance with federal tax rules.

Offshore wind energy is one of the most expensive technologies currently being built to generate electricity. According to the Energy Information Administration, offshore wind is almost three times as expensive as onshore wind and solar PV. Clearly, it is not a good value for consumers.


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

President Trump Ends Stop-Start Nightmare

President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it would end the “off-cycle” credit that manufacturers receive for installing engines that automatically turn off when vehicles come to a complete stop and restart when drivers take their feet off the brake pedal or accelerate. The purpose of the stop-start feature is to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in internal combustion engines. In 2012, the Obama EPA instituted a credit for manufacturers to install the feature in vehicles, which led to an increase in the number of vehicles with stop-start. The feature, however, was not liked by vehicle owners. In 2022, more than 1% of all automobile defect complaints collected in a Transportation Department database were related to this feature.

According to the 2024 EPA Automotive Trends Report, in 2012, less than 1% of vehicles had the start-stop feature. In 2016, about 9% of passenger cars included the feature. Now, about two-thirds of cars are manufactured with the start-stop feature. According to Consumer Reports, most cars allow drivers to temporarily turn off the start-stop feature, but they must do so each time they drive. The start-stop systems can cause a slight pause as they restart the engine, so drivers may want to turn the feature off when quick acceleration is needed to enter traffic.

One analysis found that fuel economy improvements varied significantly across drive cycles depending on the amount and percentage of idle time during the test. The largest fuel economy improvements were 7.27% and 26.4% across two of three drive cycle tests performed, using four different vehicles. Note that the savings occur under city driving conditions, not highway driving, and the highest were under New York City conditions. The greatest benefits are for city-style cycles, where vehicles sit at lights or in congestion for long stretches. According to an AAA test that used a mix of highway and city testing to get a broader average, the fuel economy savings ranged from 5% to 7%.

The Trump administration, however, has linked such features to higher automobile prices and has used the rescission of the Obama-era endangerment finding to eliminate the credit. According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the regulatory overhaul will help save consumers an average of $2,400 when they purchase a new car. He also noted that not only do many people find the start-stop feature annoying, but it kills the vehicle’s battery without any significant benefit to the environment. Additionally, the feature allowed automakers to claim greenhouse gas credits without delivering real-world emission reductions or benefits to human health.

Engine Starters Have a Limited Life Span 

An engine starter only has so many starts in it before it burns out. So, cars that use stop-start typically feature specialized starters designed for longevity. According to CarBuzz, the starters may use different carbon and copper compositions in order to sustain more frequent use, they may turn over more slowly than conventional starters in order to reduce wear and tear, or they may use a combination of advanced technology to keep the starter from wearing down as quickly as a conventional starter motor.

Despite technology’s ability to improve a starter’s longevity, a starter still needs replacement after turning over so many times, as its life depends on how frequently it is used, not on miles or years. For the Subaru Crosstrek or the WRX, for example, one of the top 10 most common repairs listed on RepairPal is for a no-start diagnosis, usually costing around $88 to $111. According to RepairPal, a new starter costs $125 to $158 for labor and $330 to $472 for parts, totaling $455 to $629.

Analysis

The Trump administration is stopping the “off-cycle” credit that manufacturers receive for the stop-start feature on autos, a feature that U.S. drivers strongly dislike. The feature’s future development in the United States will depend on whether automakers believe the engineering gains are worth the customer resistance, cost, and added system complexity, not on federal credits.


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

European Energy Disarmament Laid Bare By Iranian Conflict Shortages

The conflict with Iran is hitting Europeans very hard because energy prices were already higher there than in other regions due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. tariffs, European tax and climate policies, and bans/moratoria on fracking. Europe’s industries have faced years of high energy costs, enabling Chinese competition and leading to plant closures. Fears of deindustrialization were already common before the impacts of the Strait of Hormuz closure began to affect the continent. Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, could face a $46 billion hit over two years if oil stays at $100 a barrel, according to the IW German Economic Institute.

According to Reuters, Germany has some of the highest wholesale power prices worldwide at $132 per megawatt hour, significantly above $48 per megawatt hour in the United States and higher than the EU average of $120 per megawatt hour, according to International Energy Agency data. Germany has phased out its nuclear fleet and turned to renewable energy, which accounted for 55.9% of its electricity generation in 2025, mostly from intermittent wind and solar power. Its Energiewende by 2030 requires 80% of the electricity supply to come from renewable energy sources, rising to 100% by 2035.

Source: Reuters

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after various strikes on both sides of the Iran conflict propelled Brent oil prices to almost $120 a barrel, double the price at the start of 2026, before dropping below $100 a barrel due to President Trump’s announcement of ongoing talks with Iran. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz resulted in the reduction of about a fifth of global oil consumption that flows through the strait, with most of it headed for Asia.

According to the Wall Street Journal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Qatar, the second-biggest supplier of LNG globally after the United States, are expected to be offline for months. That means the world is losing nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas supplies, or about one-fifth of global LNG supplies. Qatar will not be able to resume production at prewar levels due to extensive damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan hub. QatarEnergy lost about 17% of its LNG export capacity when it was struck by Iran, and repairs are expected to take up to five years, with the damage affecting LNG supply to markets in Europe and Asia. QatarEnergy expects to lose about $20 billion in annual revenue. According to S&P Global Energy, other global LNG projects could theoretically add 2.3 to 2.8 million tons per month from April through June, which would not be enough to cover the roughly seven million tons Qatar produced per month before the Iran conflict began.

Besides the disruption to oil and gas markets, supplies of fertilizers, sulfur, helium, aluminum, and other critical raw materials have been affected by Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as the region accounts for significant production of all of them. Shipping costs have also surged.

Some Asian suppliers, which rely on oil from the Middle East, had declared force majeure, pushing up the price of their products. As the Journal reports, the supply crunch due to the closure of the strait is expected to lead to shutdowns at refineries and petrochemical complexes in Asia, which in turn will affect the output of products such as plastics. For example, one French company has suppliers in Vietnam and Thailand who have experienced force majeure and cannot ship raw materials, from which the French company gets 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons of polymers a year, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, the French trade association Polyvia, which represents plastics and composites companies, is raising concerns with the government, saying suppliers are using soaring gas costs to renegotiate contracts and push for higher prices. European governments have less fiscal room than in 2022 to shield industry with massive subsidies. Therefore, if oil heads towards $130 a barrel, there will be a significantly greater risk of default in sectors such as metals and chemicals.

The United States Is in a Different Position

Due to President Trump’s energy dominance program and the nation’s vast energy resources, the United States is in a different position than Europe. U.S. West Texas Intermediate oil prices are about 10% lower than Brent oil prices, and retail gasoline prices are less than $4 a gallon, on average, as of March 26. The United States is also the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and a major oil and gas exporter, selling 8.9 trillion cubic feet of LNG in 2025.

Countries are looking for secure supplies and turning to the United States. Asian refiners are sending oil cargoes from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Asia through the Panama Canal due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. oil producers are increasing production wherever possible and where they are not constrained by infrastructure. In the Permian Basin, for example, oil production growth is limited by associated gas production because excess pipeline capacity does not exist to transport it. Oil companies are also wary about adding drilling rigs because it is unclear how long the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed. Its opening will lower oil prices as more supply will be available.

Analysis

U.S. energy abundance is protecting American consumers from the severe price shocks seen in Europe due to the conflict with Iran. European energy prices were high even before the conflict began, largely due to climate regulations and subsidies for renewable energy technologies that crowd out reliable sources. How long prices will remain elevated depends on how long the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Once opened, it will take some time for producers to gear up production.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #267: Not A Florida Man

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the failed state of New York and the latest Democrat delusions from around the country.

Links:

Senator Schumer’s Energy Speech Sidesteps Accountability; Blue State Policies Have Long Kept Electricity and Gas Prices Sky-High

In his March 16, 2026, floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of fueling an “energy affordability crisis” through canceled clean energy projects and foreign entanglements, particularly the conflict in Iran, which has indeed driven up global oil and gas prices.

While the Iran situation has contributed to higher gasoline costs nationwide, Schumer’s narrative conveniently sidesteps the deeper, pre-existing drivers of energy unaffordability in many Democrat-led states. These states have long prioritized aggressive renewable mandates, fossil fuel restrictions, policies that raise gasoline prices, and the premature retirement of reliable baseload power over consumer affordability and grid reliability.

For instance, California and New York’s residential electricity rates are almost double the national average. Democrats from these states have no interest in securing affordable energy for their constituents. Instead, they push mandates for 100% carbon-free or renewable power by mid-century, the premature retirement of reliable power plants, restrictions on natural gas infrastructure, and cost-shifting policies such as net metering for solar– all measures that burden everyday citizens and ratepayers. In fact, last year, 86% of states with above-average electricity prices were reliably blue, while 80% of the lowest-priced states were red. High costs aren’t an accident; they’re the predictable outcome of choosing climate symbolism and anti-fossil fuel regulations over consumer wallets. This pattern holds in the most recent data, with blue states consistently paying 30-40% more on average for electricity than red states. High costs in states like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts aren’t anomalies; they’re policy outcomes.

New York

New York’s fracking ban provides a prime example of how the very policies championed by Democrat leaders like Chuck Schumer contribute to the energy affordability problems he decries. This suppression of domestic natural gas production has prevented the creation of thousands of jobs in the state, and it contributes to New York’s persistently high energy costs. Even though New York has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, prices for residents run about 20% higher than the national benchmark.

Democrat-led state governments in New York have historically blocked or delayed several major natural gas pipeline projects. Key examples include the Constitution Pipeline, which was repeatedly rejected starting in 2016, and the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, which was denied multiple times between 2018 and 2020 for similar reasons. In 2016, Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject the permit for the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project, arguing it would impose environmental and health risks on New Yorkers with little benefit. Senator Schumer has spoken out against other regional gas infrastructure, such as the North Brooklyn Pipeline, protesting it in 2021 alongside activists.

California

In California, Governor Newsom has been eager to blame higher gas prices on the Iran conflict and even Trump, but this rings hollow. California’s gasoline prices are a stark story of self-inflicted wounds. The state consistently pays far more at the pump, with prices at $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon above the national average in recent years. In 2025 alone, Californians shelled out an extra $20 billion for gasoline compared to the national average, based on consumption of over 13.4 billion gallons.

California has the highest combined taxes and fees on gasoline in the nation, with direct taxes and fees totaling approximately 90 cents per gallon. This breakdown includes the federal excise tax of about 18 cents per gallon, the state excise tax of 61 cents per gallon, an average state and local sales tax component of roughly 9 cents per gallon, and the underground storage tank maintenance fee of 2 cents per gallon. In addition to these explicit levies, California imposes significant environmental compliance costs that are passed on to consumers, further driving up pump prices. These primarily arise from the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which adds 14 cents per gallon, and the Cap-and-Invest Program, which adds 24 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, other blue states like Michigan and Washington recently raised their gas taxes by 5.2 and 6.2 cents per gallon, respectively. This isn’t primarily due to global events or Trump policies; it’s the direct result of decades of anti-production regulations under governors like Gavin Newsom and his predecessors.

California, once the third-largest oil-producing state, has seen production decline consistently since the 1980s. Domestic output didn’t dry up naturally; permitting and development were systematically restricted, leading to a collapse in production. California’s dependency on Middle Eastern oil stems from California’s own choices to suppress in-state and Alaskan production, which once fueled its refineries. Environmental groups and Democratic policies have pushed this outcome for years. Rather than owning it, Newsom deflects accountability while pursuing even more regulatory mandates that would further raise prices.

Political Games Aren’t a Substitute for Sound Policy

When the choice is between playing political games or pursuing sound policies, Democrats will choose the former every time. Schumer’s speech and the accompanying Democratic report are attempts to score points in the midterm messaging war, but they overlook how similar progressive energy policies have already made life more expensive for millions in Democrat-led states. True energy affordability comes from balanced, pro-production approaches, not from stonewalling market-driven projects, vilifying fossil fuels, or creating foreign dependencies that expose consumers to global volatility. Red states deliver reliable, affordable power by embracing oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear and avoiding aggressive phase-outs of these baseload sources–outcomes Democrats could replicate if they prioritized wallets over ideology.

Americans deserve an honest accounting of what actually drives costs, not partisan spin that ignores the mirror. If Democrats truly want lower energy bills, they might start by examining the high-price outcomes in their own backyards.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s Hypocrisy on Gas Prices Is Breathtaking

Governor Gavin Newsom has been busy on X lately, posting repeatedly about gasoline prices and blaming the war in Iraq for driving them higher. He is correct that the conflict in Iran affects oil markets, but the governor has some explaining to do. Twenty percent of the oil California uses flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and that’s a consequence of Newsom’s own energy policies. Before California’s governor lectures the rest of the country about gasoline prices, he should answer a simple question: Why are California’s gasoline prices so much higher than the national average?  

Data Source: GasBuddy.com

California Has the Highest Gas Prices in the Country. Newsom Helped Built That.

How much does California pay for Gavin’s anti-oil policies? In 2025, California paid $20 billion more for gasoline than the national average. 

Here’s the math:   

California used more than 13.4 billion gallons of gasoline in 2025. The average price in 2025 (before the Iran conflict) was roughly $1.50 per gallon above the national average. That means Californians paid $20.1 billion more in 2021 than they would have if they had paid the national average.  

Today, this comparison is even worse. California’s gasoline prices are $1.80 more than the national average.    

As recently as 2016, California was the third-largest oil-producing state in the country. By 2025, it had fallen to eighth. California didn’t run out of oil. Newsom and previous administrations systematically restricted the permitting and development of California’s domestic resources, leading to a collapse in production. The state that once helped launch the global oil industry now imports nearly two-thirds of its oil from foreign sources.

In 1988, approximately 95% of the oil supplied to California refineries came from California and Alaska. Today, 63.5% comes from foreign sources — with 21% from Iraq, 5% from Saudi Arabia, and 4% from the UAE. That’s the chart Newsom should be showing in his X posts (and the chart below is from the state of California):

Source: California Energy Commission

The growth in California’s foreign oil dependency isn’t a market phenomenon. It’s the predictable real-world consequence of decades of anti-production policy.

The Real Reason Newsom Is Blaming Trump and Iran

Newsom’s pivot to blaming Trump and Middle East instability for California’s gas prices is strategically transparent. As noted above, 20% of the oil California uses comes from the Middle East, specifically through the Strait of Hormuz. That exposure exists because California has made itself dependent on foreign oil by suppressing domestic and Alaskan production.

The point of blaming Trump is not to solve California’s gasoline price problem. The point is to avoid accountability for the policy choices that created it. California-based environmental activist groups have spent years working to reduce oil production in Alaska and at home. The result is a state where two-thirds of its oil supply is imported, and the governor is surprised when geopolitical risk in the Middle East shows up at the pump.

The Fix Is Obvious. Newsom Won’t Take It.

California has significant remaining oil resource potential. It could expand in-state production. It could work to support more oil development in Alaska rather than opposing it. Either path would reduce foreign energy dependence and put downward pressure on the prices Newsom is now complaining about.

Instead, Newsom is trying to further increase gasoline prices in California through additional regulatory mandates, while posting on social media about gasoline prices as though it’s someone else’s fault.

The Unregulated Podcast #266: A Dry Buffalo (3/14/26)

On this week’s episode, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, recent primary election news, the new shale refinery in Texas, and McKenna’s back-and-forth with Senator Cramer on the PROVE IT Act in the Washington Times.

Links:

Strait of Hormuz  – Source: CNN

Hern Running in OK – Source: Fox News

Rahm EmmanuelSource: WSJ

The Exodus Continues, Starbucks – Source: WSJ

Yahama to leave CASource: Fox Business

Funny How That Works: Competition in Health CareSource: Washington Post

New Refinery: 100% ShaleSource: PR Newswire

McKenna responds to Senator Cramer on the PROVE IT Act – Source: Washington Times

Will Carb hit the brakes on new CA climate rules? Even some Dems want them to. – Source: NY Post

Lights out in NY – Source: NY Sun

The Unregulated Podcast #265: Yabber, Yabber, Yabber (3/7/26)

On this episode of the Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the conflict in Iran and its impact on energy markets.

Links:

Noem Out, Mullin In – Source: Politico

Iran: One Side: Rand Paul – Source: Fox News The Other Side: – Source: The Dispatch

China’s Oil Dilemma – Source: Politico

AI Anxiety: Blackrock Limits Withdrawals – Source: Bloomberg

Senate Permitting Talks Back On – Source: The Hill

Who Actually Wrote the Climate Manual for Federal Judges? – Source: The Honest Broker/Roger Pielke

AEA Applauds Judgment in Dakota Access Pipeline Case Against Greenpeace

WASHINGTON DC (03/03/2026) – Last week, a judge in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay damages totaling $345 million to pipeline company Energy Transfer. This comes after a 2025 North Dakota jury found them liable for conspiracy and trespassing, among other charges, for efforts to sabotage the Dakota Access Pipeline.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“This latest judgment against Greenpeace marks a decisive win for America’s ability to deliver energy to consumers. For years, certain activist organizations have engaged in disruptive and, at times, unlawful activities aimed at halting critical infrastructure projects, including pipeline development. These actions have threatened worker safety and community well-being, damaged property and the environment, and impacted all those who depend on affordable, reliable energy.

“Since entering service, the Dakota Access Pipeline has lowered transportation costs and generated roughly $750 million in additional proceeds for public use in North Dakota. It has become a cornerstone of the state’s economy, where innovative oil and natural gas development accounts for nearly one-third of its economic activity.

“This recent judgment underscores the importance of accountability and the rule of law. And while it is an encouraging milestone, our judicial system must stand firm in holding these obstructionists accountable for their unlawful actions, as they inevitably appeal the ruling. Our energy security cannot be treated as a pawn in their dogmatic games.”

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

The Unregulated Podcast #264: What Is It Going To Get Me This Time? (3/2/26)

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the escalating situation in Iran, companies leaving blue states, and Germany ditching its climate targets.

Links:

Iran – Source: Politico

More Companies Leaving Blue States: Public Storage – Source: LA Times

Happy Anniversary, LNG Exports – Source: Forbes

Geothermal, the New Wind and Solar – Source: Euronews

Greenpeace Lawsuit – Source: AP News

SCOTUS Takes Up Boulder Climate Lawfare Case – Source: WSJ Opinion

Germany Starts Ditching Climate Targets – Source: The Guardian