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.
Share this page:
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Trump’s ascendency to the White House, what his victory means for the future of American energy, and the reactions his triumph has solicited from the usual suspects.
Links:
Stay Connected With The Show:
Despite Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election and his campaign slogan “drill, baby, drill,” the Biden-Harris administration quickly acted to limit the scope of an oil-and-gas lease sale in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which had been mandated under Trump’s leadership. In 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which required at least two lease sales in ANWR’s 1.6 million-acre coastal plain by the end of 2024. The first of these lease sales took place in 2021 under his administration. However, after taking office, the Biden-Harris team canceled these leases, citing “insufficient analysis” of the potential environmental impact of drilling.
Now, with the legal requirement to hold a second lease sale before the year’s end, the Biden administration has reduced the scope of that sale in alignment with its climate policies. The lease will go forward on a much smaller area — 400,000 acres, the minimum allowed by law — and will be subject to new environmental regulations. These changes are designed to make the lease sale less economically viable, limiting the number of bids from companies, much as the Biden administration did in its 2021 ANWR lease sale. This move provides ammunition for environmental groups, who argue that there’s little interest in resources that could rival the vast oil fields of Prudhoe Bay.
Under the new Biden-Harris plan, the lease sale would focus on tracts in the northern and western regions of the coastal plain, while excluding the eastern and southern areas, supposedly to protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd that migrates through these parts. Alaska is home to 32 caribou herds, but none are negatively impacted by oil development. Furthermore, the new plan reduces the allowed surface disturbance from 2,000 acres to just 995 acres and restricts seismic exploration to only the leased tracts — a shift from the previous plan, under which seismic exploration was permitted across the entire coastal plain, although it was never actually conducted. Seismic exploration uses sound waves to map underground structures and identify potential oil and gas reserves.
The first lease sale in 2021, which auctioned off 11 tracts covering more than 550,000 acres, generated $14.4 million in revenue. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), which was the largest bidder, secured 370,000 acres in the sale. AIDEA has already pledged to participate in the upcoming ANWR lease sale, with its board unanimously approving up to $20 million to prepare for potential bids. Many Alaskans and oil industry leaders continue to support drilling in the refuge, pointing to the vital revenue that taxes on oil production bring to local governments, as well as the need to ensure the continued operation of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The North Slope’s Inupiat Eskimo population, in particular, supports drilling due to its significant economic benefits. These communities, which face harsh winters with extended periods of sub-zero temperatures and darkness, rely on the revenue to fund infrastructure and services, including the provision of firewood, as trees do not grow in the area. However, environmental activists have pressured major banks in the U.S. and Canada to stop financing oil projects in ANWR, including the five largest U.S. banks — Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo.
“It seems that once again the people of the North Slope are being told that our voices and lived experience are insufficient and that federal laws passed by Congress mean little in the eyes of the Biden administration’s Department of the Interior (DOI),” North Slope Borough Mayor Josiah Patkotak said in a press release by the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, a regional group advocating for oil development on the North Slope. “The federal government’s latest actions are shameful and will have serious consequences for Kaktovik and the North Slope. With this latest development, DOI has soundly rejected the opportunity to partner in our effort to aptly balance development and preservation in our region.”
According to Doreen Leavitt, tribal secretary and director of natural resources for the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, “This development is a desperate Hail-Mary from a soundly defeated Biden administration that is more intent on advancing its policy agenda and ramming through flawed policies than working with Alaska Native communities to create balanced, lasting policies that advance our self-determination.”
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lead author of the legislative language that requires the lease sale. She fears that the Biden-Harris plan “effectively crippled and made it not viable for anybody to bid on with the conditions that they have put in place,” indicating that potential bidders may look elsewhere as President-Elect Trump opens up federal land where development is less costly. The North Slope is a challenging environment because of severe weather conditions, permafrost to depths of up to 1700 feet, and logistical challenges in an area with few roads.
The exact date of the lease sale is yet to be determined, but the law requires it must be held by December 22. The final environmental review for the sale will be followed by a final decision from the Biden administration choosing a leasing alternative–a formal document called a “record of decision” that makes the choice final. The record of the decision is to come no earlier than 30 days after the notice of the supplemental environmental impact statement, which is expected to be published in the Federal Register scheduled for Friday, November 8.
Conclusion
President-Elect Trump has vowed to boost oil drilling in ANWR, as part of a broader plan to expand fossil fuel production on public lands across the country. In the 2017 tax bill, Congress required two ANWR lease sales before the end of 2022, the first having occurred during Trump’s first term. While the Biden-Harris administration must offer one more before the end of the year, it has limited the acreage to the fewest possible and has applied other restrictions to how drilling is to be conducted. Many Alaskans are truly upset by the intrusion from the federal government to limit the ability of the local population to obtain good jobs and to provide for a better economy for Alaskans. This is consistent with Biden’s campaign promise to end fossil fuels and the 250 actions taken to make oil and gas more difficult to produce. Despite the landslide victory of President-elect Trump, who has pledged to work with the Native people to develop their rightful lands, President Biden is placing impediments to their future to please environmental activists who oppose all oil and gas development in the United States.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.
California has the highest gasoline prices and one of the highest residential electricity prices in the nation due to its climate and energy policies. However, rather than own up to the real causes, California Governor Newsom is looking to camouflage the reality of his state’s policies, at least in the short term. Newsom wants to up the ethanol share in a gallon of gasoline from 10% to 15% to lower the gas price in order to compensate for future price increases from tightening the state’s low carbon fuel standard. And, Newsom has also directed his regulators “to pursue any federal funding available to help lower electricity costs for Californians.” For example, the federal government has provided the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant with $1.1 billion to keep it operating, despite the state originally wanting to close it. The plant provides the state with 9% of its electricity and is its largest source. With this guidance, taxpayers across the nation will be paying for Newsom’s climate and energy policies that include a renewable mandate, a carbon tax via a cap-and-trade system, and net metering for rooftop solar.
Policies that Affect Gasoline Prices
California is set to strengthen its low carbon fuel standard, which mandates an annual reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state. This will require refineries to blend more renewable fuels into gasoline and diesel. As a result, gas prices could rise by 8 to 10 cents per gallon, depending on the outcome of a vote on the standard scheduled for November 8. This potential price hike comes on the heels of a new California law that mandates refiners to maintain larger fuel inventories than the current two-week minimum, intending to prevent supply shortages and price fluctuations. To comply, refiners will need to make significant investments in infrastructure to store and regularly replenish this inventory, as gasoline has a limited shelf life. These regulatory changes have already led to the announced closure of a major Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles, which accounted for 8% of the state’s refining capacity. The shutdown will reduce fuel availability, contributing to higher prices. Additionally, California may face further supply challenges as Valero may close two more major refineries, which produce 14% of the state’s gasoline, according to Just The News.
California’s geographic isolation from the U.S. refining centers in the Gulf Coast and Midwest forces the state to either produce all its motor fuels locally or import them. This, combined with its unique environmental regulations and higher taxes, has made California home to the highest gasoline prices in the country, due to its specialized “boutique” fuel. As of November 4, the average price for gasoline in California was $4.55 per gallon—roughly 50% higher than the national average and comparable to Hawaii. One potential solution to ease the price pressure is increasing the ethanol blend from 10% to 15%, which could boost the state’s gasoline supply by 5% to 10%, thereby lowering prices.
Once a leading oil producer, California’s output has dropped by about 35% since Governor Gavin Newsom took office in January 2019, while other oil-producing states have seen increases. Newsom has also signed legislation allowing local governments to block new oil wells and has effectively halted the issuance of new drilling permits, further curbing oil production in the state.
Policies Affecting Electric Rates
According to the Energy Information Administration, California’s residential electricity prices are the second highest in the nation after Hawaii. At 32.56 cents per kilowatt hour, California’s average residential electricity price is almost double the national average of 16.62 cents per kilowatt hour. As mentioned above, California has several policies that result in higher electricity prices than in other states.
California has set ambitious renewable energy goals under its renewable portfolio standard, which mandates that 60% of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily intermittent wind and solar—by 2030. By 2045, the state aims to achieve 100% renewable energy, with interim targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040. These goals are becoming increasingly difficult to meet, particularly as the state introduces additional mandates for electric vehicles (EVs) and appliances, and even plans to replace diesel-powered trains with battery-electric ones. Starting in 2026, state regulations require that 35% of all new cars sold in California be zero-emission, with that figure rising to 100% by 2035. Achieving these ambitious targets and electrifying other sectors of the economy will demand that California nearly triple its electricity generation capacity. To do so, the state must accelerate the deployment of solar and wind energy at a rate nearly five times faster than in the past decade—despite the intermittent nature of these power sources. In addition, California has set its sights on generating 13% of its electricity by 2045 from floating offshore wind platforms, which are expected to be extremely costly, running into billions of dollars.
To help mitigate the risk of power shortages, California’s utilities have invested heavily in expensive battery storage systems. These batteries are designed to store excess energy produced by solar and wind power when supply exceeds demand and then discharge the stored energy when renewable sources are unavailable. State lawmakers have instructed utilities to add more of these costly batteries and also to provide subsidies for homeowners to install them, which is expected to raise electricity prices for consumers. Moreover, as China controls a significant portion of the global battery market, this means that an increasing share of California’s electricity grid will depend on foreign supply chains, particularly from China.
California’s “net metering” program for rooftop solar forces utility customers to subsidize the electric bills of homeowners who have solar panels, as they sell their excess electricity to the grid at retail rates, 2 to 3 times as high as wholesale rates, thereby avoiding paying for transmission and distribution services. According to the Wall Street Journal, about 10% to 20% of the electric bill of the average utility customer without rooftop solar subsidizes homeowners who can afford rooftop solar systems. The California Public Utility Commission’s Public Advocates Office estimates that net metering will cost customers without solar panels $8.5 billion this year, up from $3.4 billion in 2021. California also has “public benefit” programs to subsidize lower rates, electric appliances, and vehicles for lower-income households.
California operates a cap-and-trade program that requires its natural gas-fired power plants—responsible for 36% of the state’s electricity generation—to purchase emissions permits, which allow them to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The cost of these emissions permits is passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity rates. To help offset some of these increased costs, the California Public Utilities Commission provides customers with biannual “climate credits” on their bills, distributed in April and October. The primary goal of the cap-and-trade system is to raise energy prices, incentivizing consumers to reduce their energy consumption.
While California’s mild climate along the Pacific coast may make it easier for many residents to conserve energy without sacrificing comfort or productivity, this does not hold true for inland areas. In these regions, where temperatures can soar and incomes tend to be lower, the pressure to cut back on energy use may be much harder to manage. For residents in these areas, higher electricity prices can place a significant strain on their finances, exacerbating economic challenges.
Conclusion
California Governor Newsom’s climate and energy policies are causing its energy prices to be some of the highest in the country. And, unfortunately, he is continuing his climate programs and creating new ones that will result in even higher energy prices. Rather than admit that he wants higher prices so that Californians will use less energy, he has directed his regulators “to pursue any federal funding available to help lower electricity costs for Californians.” That is, he wants the rest of the country to subsidize his energy program, which the Biden-Harris administration is doing through the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act that is costing taxpayers trillions in green subsidies. Vice President Kamala Harris broke the tie in the Senate that passed the bill and she is likely to pursue California’s energy programs and may even appoint Governor Newsom to an important Cabinet position if elected to the U.S. Presidency.
California has the highest gasoline prices and one of the highest residential electricity prices in the nation due to its climate and energy policies. However, rather than own up to the real causes, California Governor Newsom is looking to camouflage the reality of his state’s policies, at least in the short term. Newsom wants to up the ethanol share in a gallon of gasoline from 10% to 15% to lower the gas price in order to compensate for future price increases from tightening the state’s low carbon fuel standard. And, Newsom has also directed his regulators “to pursue any federal funding available to help lower electricity costs for Californians.” For example, the federal government has provided the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant with $1.1 billion to keep it operating, despite the state originally wanting to close it. The plant provides the state with 9% of its electricity and is its largest source. With this guidance, taxpayers across the nation will be paying for Newsom’s climate and energy policies that include a renewable mandate, a carbon tax via a cap-and-trade system, and net metering for rooftop solar.
Policies that Affect Gasoline Prices
California is set to strengthen its low carbon fuel standard, which mandates an annual reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state. This will require refineries to blend more renewable fuels into gasoline and diesel. As a result, gas prices could rise by 8 to 10 cents per gallon, depending on the outcome of a vote on the standard scheduled for November 8. This potential price hike comes on the heels of a new California law that mandates refiners to maintain larger fuel inventories than the current two-week minimum, intending to prevent supply shortages and price fluctuations. To comply, refiners will need to make significant investments in infrastructure to store and regularly replenish this inventory, as gasoline has a limited shelf life. These regulatory changes have already led to the announced closure of a major Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles, which accounted for 8% of the state’s refining capacity. The shutdown will reduce fuel availability, contributing to higher prices. Additionally, California may face further supply challenges as Valero may close two more major refineries, which produce 14% of the state’s gasoline, according to Just The News.
California’s geographic isolation from the U.S. refining centers in the Gulf Coast and Midwest forces the state to either produce all its motor fuels locally or import them. This, combined with its unique environmental regulations and higher taxes, has made California home to the highest gasoline prices in the country, due to its specialized “boutique” fuel. As of November 4, the average price for gasoline in California was $4.55 per gallon—roughly 50% higher than the national average and comparable to Hawaii. One potential solution to ease the price pressure is increasing the ethanol blend from 10% to 15%, which could boost the state’s gasoline supply by 5% to 10%, thereby lowering prices.
Once a leading oil producer, California’s output has dropped by about 35% since Governor Gavin Newsom took office in January 2019, while other oil-producing states have seen increases. Newsom has also signed legislation allowing local governments to block new oil wells and has effectively halted the issuance of new drilling permits, further curbing oil production in the state.
Policies Affecting Electric Rates
According to the Energy Information Administration, California’s residential electricity prices are the second highest in the nation after Hawaii. At 32.56 cents per kilowatt hour, California’s average residential electricity price is almost double the national average of 16.62 cents per kilowatt hour. As mentioned above, California has several policies that result in higher electricity prices than in other states.
California has set ambitious renewable energy goals under its renewable portfolio standard, which mandates that 60% of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily intermittent wind and solar—by 2030. By 2045, the state aims to achieve 100% renewable energy, with interim targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040. These goals are becoming increasingly difficult to meet, particularly as the state introduces additional mandates for electric vehicles (EVs) and appliances, and even plans to replace diesel-powered trains with battery-electric ones. Starting in 2026, state regulations require that 35% of all new cars sold in California be zero-emission, with that figure rising to 100% by 2035. Achieving these ambitious targets and electrifying other sectors of the economy will demand that California nearly triple its electricity generation capacity. To do so, the state must accelerate the deployment of solar and wind energy at a rate nearly five times faster than in the past decade—despite the intermittent nature of these power sources. In addition, California has set its sights on generating 13% of its electricity by 2045 from floating offshore wind platforms, which are expected to be extremely costly, running into billions of dollars.
To help mitigate the risk of power shortages, California’s utilities have invested heavily in expensive battery storage systems. These batteries are designed to store excess energy produced by solar and wind power when supply exceeds demand and then discharge the stored energy when renewable sources are unavailable. State lawmakers have instructed utilities to add more of these costly batteries and also to provide subsidies for homeowners to install them, which is expected to raise electricity prices for consumers. Moreover, as China controls a significant portion of the global battery market, this means that an increasing share of California’s electricity grid will depend on foreign supply chains, particularly from China.
California’s “net metering” program for rooftop solar forces utility customers to subsidize the electric bills of homeowners who have solar panels, as they sell their excess electricity to the grid at retail rates, 2 to 3 times as high as wholesale rates, thereby avoiding paying for transmission and distribution services. According to the Wall Street Journal, about 10% to 20% of the electric bill of the average utility customer without rooftop solar subsidizes homeowners who can afford rooftop solar systems. The California Public Utility Commission’s Public Advocates Office estimates that net metering will cost customers without solar panels $8.5 billion this year, up from $3.4 billion in 2021. California also has “public benefit” programs to subsidize lower rates, electric appliances, and vehicles for lower-income households.
California operates a cap-and-trade program that requires its natural gas-fired power plants—responsible for 36% of the state’s electricity generation—to purchase emissions permits, which allow them to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The cost of these emissions permits is passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity rates. To help offset some of these increased costs, the California Public Utilities Commission provides customers with biannual “climate credits” on their bills, distributed in April and October. The primary goal of the cap-and-trade system is to raise energy prices, incentivizing consumers to reduce their energy consumption.
While California’s mild climate along the Pacific coast may make it easier for many residents to conserve energy without sacrificing comfort or productivity, this does not hold true for inland areas. In these regions, where temperatures can soar and incomes tend to be lower, the pressure to cut back on energy use may be much harder to manage. For residents in these areas, higher electricity prices can place a significant strain on their finances, exacerbating economic challenges.
Conclusion
California Governor Newsom’s climate and energy policies are causing its energy prices to be some of the highest in the country. And, unfortunately, he is continuing his climate programs and creating new ones that will result in even higher energy prices. Rather than admit that he wants higher prices so that Californians will use less energy, he has directed his regulators “to pursue any federal funding available to help lower electricity costs for Californians.” That is, he wants the rest of the country to subsidize his energy program, which the Biden-Harris administration is doing through the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act that is costing taxpayers trillions in green subsidies. Vice President Kamala Harris broke the tie in the Senate that passed the bill and she is likely to pursue California’s energy programs and may even appoint Governor Newsom to an important Cabinet position if elected to the U.S. Presidency.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.
Last night’s election results sent a clear message to our elected officials – the American people want a return to economic growth driven by the affordable and reliable energy that powers every sector of our economy. In a clean sweep across the country, Americans affirmed their support for President Trump’s commitment to reversing the harmful regulations and subsidy programs that have stifled American energy production and served as obstacles to economic opportunity.
In the 2024 elections, energy policy was very much on the ballot. Throughout their campaign, the Biden-Harris administration proudly touted its aggressive energy and environmental policies as among its leading accomplishments. At the presidential and congressional levels, energy policy served as key messaging in speeches and debates. While it may sometimes be difficult to tell the two parties apart, there is a distinct divide in philosophy and priorities when it comes to energy policy. Because of the change of control in the White House and Senate, there will be a significant alteration in the direction of energy policy in the United States over the next four years.
President Trump Wins
President-elect Donald Trump won resoundingly. Despite expectations that results might take days, or even weeks, his victory was easily confirmed by early this morning. Though the final popular vote count will not be known for some time, it looks increasingly like he will take that as well. As we have seen before, a Trump administration will have a massive impact on energy and environmental policy. The Biden administration has been the most left-wing administration in history regarding energy policy. The Harris campaign quickly and rhetorically moved to the middle on many energy issues (for example, reversing her support of a ban on hydraulic fracturing and on the Green New Deal), but in reality, a Harris administration would probably have continued down the same destructive path.
Trump’s victory provides an opportunity to reverse much of the Biden administration’s executive overreach. Regulations such as those effectively mandating electric vehicles, suppressing oil and gas development on federal lands, and trying to close reliable coal and natural gas electricity generation will all be subject to review and reversal. Policy actions like participating in the Paris Agreement international climate change accord, favoring wind and solar developers, or handing out subsidies for so-called environmental justice groups should also be reversed. Because the Biden administration has gone so far with executive action without the input of Congress, there is a large body of policy change that the Trump administration will be able to modify or reverse in short order.
Senate
In the Senate, as of this writing, Republicans have added three seats (Ohio, West Virginia, and Montana) for a total of 52, with four more races still uncalled. With 52 seats, Republicans will take back control of the chamber in the 119th Congress, but the outcomes of the remaining seats are important for energy policy in particular. Right now, the Senate majority rests on moderates like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator-elect John Curtis (R-UT), neither of whom is a reliable vote for good energy policy. Adding one or two more senators from the remaining races could thus make a significant difference for the chamber’s energy and environmental policy outcomes.
In the new Senate, the two central energy policy committees will likely be led by strong energy advocates Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) chairing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) chairing the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senate Commerce Committee, which also has some energy-related jurisdiction, will likely be chaired by another strong energy advocate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). These new leaders will make a difference in the kinds of hearings that are held and the formation of energy legislation, as well as approving nominees for the incoming Trump administration.
Speaking of nominees, this will be another area where the margin of Republican control will make a large difference. With 52 votes, nominees are potentially held hostage to several unreliable senators. A few more seats would ensure that the Trump administration would be able to confirm the strongest energy policy nominees.
House of Representatives
Control of the House of Representatives remains outstanding, with numerous races too close to call. Even if Republicans retain control of the chamber, it will only be by a couple of seats. This narrow majority naturally limits the scope of legislative possibilities. Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapprovals of Biden administration regulations, while requiring a majority, will be more difficult because only a handful of votes will decide the outcome. Thus, the only CRA votes we can probably expect to pass are repeals of the most egregious administration overreach. The narrow majority similarly would limit the content of any potential reconciliation legislation packages, or any other legislation. Democrats used reconciliation (which allows the passage of spending legislation with simple majorities in both chambers) to force through a large percentage of their Green New Deal spending priorities. Limiting or repealing those distortions and subsidies will be more challenging, though not impossible, with a tiny majority.
Control of the chamber does matter, though, in selecting committee chairs. As those in the majority chair committees, they control what hearings are held and what investigations and oversight happen. The outcome of control does matter, even if significant legislation movement is unlikely in the next two years.
Ballot Measures
In addition to these races, two ballot measures are worth noting. In Berkeley, California, Measure GG sought to impose a special tax on all buildings 15,000 square feet or larger that use natural gas. The tax rate would rise 6% above inflation each year and expire in 2050. The ballot measure would have effectively phased out natural gas in the city; however, 68.7% of voters opposed it, defeating it.
In Washington State, Measure 2066 was on the ballot. This measure would repeal parts of the Washington Decarbonization Act that deter the use of natural gas and require local governments and utilities to provide natural gas to eligible customers. It appears to be on track to pass, as 51.2% of voters have voted in favor of it, with 62% of the vote total reported.
In recent years, natural gas bans have been a flashpoint in energy policy, highlighting the gap between the policy preferences of individuals working in the administrative state and the public. These ballot initiatives demonstrate what happens when the public has an opportunity to weigh in on natural gas bans. In each instance, voters rejected the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are more capable than individuals of determining what sort of fuel sources best suit their needs.
Conclusion
This election reflects the American people’s recognition of the vital role affordable energy plays in every aspect of our lives. As demand for energy and electricity continues to grow, it’s essential to establish a policy framework that allows energy producers to meet this need. We are eager to work with President Trump to unlock America’s full energy potential, safeguard Americans’ right to choose the vehicles that best suit their needs, and prioritize American energy, jobs, and families.
WASHINGTON DC (11/6/2024) – According to AP News, President Donald J. Trump has been declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election. A major theme of President Trump’s campaign was his intention to promote policies that make energy and electricity more affordable for everyday Americans. The American Energy Alliance endorsed candidate Trump.
American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on President Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election:
“Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump on his election victory. Throughout his campaign, President Trump expressed his unabashed support for American energy. He promised to embrace domestic oil and gas production, lower energy and electricity prices, and undo the inflationary Biden-Harris Green New Deal policies, especially the wasteful taxpayer funded subsidies in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That’s because President Trump understands that affordable and reliable energy is critical to our economic well-being and our national security.
“We look forward to working with President Trump to unleash our energy potential, preserve the right for Americans to choose the types of cars and trucks that best suit our needs, and unwind the Biden-Harris administration’s regulatory onslaught on American energy producers.”
AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:
Additional Background Resources From AEA:
With an already unapologetic track record of anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, having blatantly said and famously backtracked on the idea that the United States should ban hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” the American people should expect that any energy policies from a Harris presidency would result in higher energy prices across the board and a suicidal effort to eliminate fossil fuels – society’s most reliable and affordable energy resource.
A recent report from Bloomberg claims that discussions of Harris’ true environmental policy goals are happening, although quite secretively, as her true intentions risk spooking any remaining undecided voters. The suggestions for Harris are based on her far-left voting record and include, but are not limited to, the following:
These policy suggestions are not only naive but demonstrate a level of disconnect unbecoming of a nation supposedly full of the greatest policy minds in the world. For example, limiting liquified natural gas exports is not only a poor economic policy, but the act would artificially raise the cost of electricity given that millions of people rely on natural gas to keep their lights on. It also is illogical due to the abundance of natural gas resources in the U.S. given that there are over 65 quadrillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in the U.S., which, at 2022 consumption rates, would equal 1,000 years of supply. Furthermore, America’s allies in Europe who have decoupled themselves from Russian natural gas, would be left in the cold if the U.S. were to limit natural gas exports as American LNG is necessary to solidify severe Europe’s dependence on Russian energy – such action also cripples Russia’s ability to fund their war in Ukraine.
Additionally, shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172 mile long underground pipeline, that had transported up to 750,000 barrels of crude per day since it began operation in 2016, would have severe long-term consequences for the North Dakotan economy, and would weaken America’s ability to remain energy independent. Furthermore, by transporting the equivalent of 3,000 tanker trucks or 815 railcars worth of crude oil, the Dakota Access Pipeline, and pipelines in general, help lower emissions resulting from mass transportation of crude making them one of the most environmentally friendly means for ensuring that people have access to affordable energy.
Conclusion
Vice President Kamal Harris has a reputation for being one of the most left-leaning politicians of this century, and her anti-fossil fuel rhetoric supports this claim. Kamala Harris has flip-flopped on whether or not she would ban fracking and only recently due to the necessity for her to win Pennsylvania in the 2024 election. Her political career is littered with support for anti-free market and anti-fossil fuel policies with plenty of interviews with her proudly espousing supportive rhetoric for self-defeating anti-fossil fuel policies. The current blueprints for energy and environmental policies being discussed behind closed doors with the Harris campaign are guaranteed to be more costly and far less reliable to the American people than traditional, and proven dependent, fossil fuels. The free market has spoken, and demand for oil and gas isn’t going away anytime soon, therefore, federal policies should support pipeline construction as one of the most environmentally friendly means for transporting such a vital resource.
On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna give their final thoughts on the World Series and the race for the White House.
Links:
Stay Connected With The Show:
In the United States our federal politics consists largely of a two-party affair. In light of this, the American Energy Alliance has endorsed Donald Trump for president, as he represents the most likely path to unleashing American energy production.
There are, however, multiple choices on the Presidential ballot this year. To better understand the variety of viewpoints present in the national conversation on energy policy I have prepared a review of the candidates’ energy platforms. Below you will find one quotation from each, giving a flavor of the range, from total free market reliance to socialism/nationalization.
In order of energy freedom (most to least), six positions follow.
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
Republicans will increase Energy Production across the board, streamline permitting, and end market-distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal.
The Administration has rallied the world to commit for the first time to transitioning away from fossil fuels…. As Democrats, we believe the United States has an indispensable role to play in solving the climate crisis, and we have an obligation to help other nations carry out this work.
A Jill Stein Administration will advance the ecosocialist Real Green New Deal that the Green Party made its signature issue in the 2010s.
Nationalization of the Fossil Fuel Industry is a bold stride toward dismantling the engines of environmental destruction. By transitioning control to the people, we can decisively phase out the relics of our carbon-dependent past and pave the way for a renewable, just future while caring for those whose livelihoods must evolve in this new dawn.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation
The climate catastrophe demonstrates the disastrous self-interest of the capitalist class. To avoid excessive warming, as well as the many severe environmental threats produced by capitalism, it is necessary to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
For a more indepth review of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ energy platforms please visit AEA’s Presidential Platform Comparison Page, a part of our Vote Energy 2024 initiative.
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the founder of the Institute for Energy Research, AEA’s sister organization and is one of the nation’s leading experts on the history and regulation of energy markets.
*The views presented in Energy Townhall by AEA’s experts in their own capacity do not necessarily represent the views of AEA.
Last month, the American Energy Alliance released the 2024 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives. The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educating voters on how their representatives vote and holding members accountable for those decisions.
The scorecard is guided by principles such as:
This year’s American Energy Scorecard compiled 21 votes from the 118th Congress. 90 House members achieved a 100% score.
While many members failed to achieve a perfect score for various reasons, the most concerning scores came from those representing districts where the energy industry is a major economic driver and job creator. One of these members is Rep. Yadira Caraveo, whose Colorado’s 8th Congressional District includes rich oil and gas lands north of Denver.
Rep. Caraveo did not just score poorly. Her 33% score placed him near the bottom of the body along with extreme anti-energy members like Green New Deal creator Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Caraveo is clearly out of step with her constituents in the 8th district. Her voting record might pass in New York City, but it’s not acceptable for his energy-producing district.
It also cannot be considered an accident. AEA notifies all members in advance of votes that will be scored. A member disagreeing with AEA’s position on one or two votes might be understandable, but Rep. Caraveo shows a consistent record of votes that restrict Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy. Her record of voting against the interests of his constituents should be on the minds of voters in 2024.
Last month, the American Energy Alliance released the 2024 American Energy Scorecard for the House of Representatives. The AEA scorecard scores voting and co-sponsorship decisions on legislation affecting energy and environmental policy, educating voters on how their representatives vote and holding members accountable for those decisions.
The scorecard is guided by principles such as:
This year’s American Energy Scorecard compiled 21 votes from the 118th Congress. 90 House members achieved a 100% score.
While many members failed to achieve a perfect score for various reasons, the most concerning scores came from those representing districts where the energy industry is a major economic driver and job creator. One of these members is Rep. Matt Cartwright, whose Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District sits on the edge of the Marcellus shale development.
Rep. Cartwright did not just score poorly. His 5% score placed him near the bottom of the body along with extreme anti-energy members like Green New Deal creator Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Cartwright is clearly out of step with his constituents in the 8th district. His voting record might pass in New York City, but it’s not acceptable for his energy-producing district.
It also cannot be considered an accident. AEA notifies all members in advance of votes that will be scored. A member disagreeing with AEA’s position on one or two votes might be understandable, but Rep. Cartwright shows a consistent record of votes that restrict Americans’ access to affordable and reliable energy. His record of voting against the interests of his constituents should be on the minds of voters in 2024.