Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

50 Actions the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans Have Taken to Unleash Our Energy Potential

March 25, 2025 by Leave a Comment

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans ran on a plan for American energy: make it easier to produce and more affordable to purchase. Since President Trump took office, his administration and congressional allies have taken over 50 actions to unleash America’s energy potential. A list of those actions appears below.

January 20, 2025 

  1. President Donald J. Trump had a whirlwind first day in office on January 20 signing some 200 executive orders, many redirecting federal policies on energy such as: Executive order declaring a national energy emergency.
  2. Executive order revoking and rescinding the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
  3. Executive order pausing government agencies and departments from issuing new rules until a department head approves.
  4. Executive order reviewing agency activities that burden the production of U.S. energy.
  5. Executive order allowing drilling and reversing restrictions placed by the Federal Government on Alaskan energy production.
  6. Executive order resuming the processing of export permit applications for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects.
  7. An offshore wind moratorium and a 60-day stop of new wind and solar permits on federal lands.
  8. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and revoking any financial commitments under the UNFCCC.
  9. Rescinded previous executive actions, including: Executive Order 13990 of January 20, 2021 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis).
  10. Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 (Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration).
  11. Executive Order 14027 of May 7, 2021 (Establishment of the Climate Change Support Office).
  12. Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability).
  13. Executive Order 14082 of September 12, 2022 (Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022).
  14. The Presidential Memorandum of March 13, 2023 (Withdrawal of Certain Areas off the United States Arctic Coast of the Outer Continental Shelf from Oil or Gas Leasing).
  15. The Presidential Memorandum of January 3, 2025 (Designation of Officials of the Council on Environmental Quality to Act as Chairman).
  16. The Presidential Memorandum of January 6, 2025 (Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Oil or Natural Gas Leasing).
  17. The Presidential Memorandum of January 6, 2025 (Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Oil or Natural Gas Leasing).

January 31, 2025

  1. The Bureau of Land Management issued leases effective Feb. 1 for 17 oil and gas parcels totaling 6,259 acres in the Farmington and Rio Puerco field offices in New Mexico.

February 3, 2025

  1. Announced attempt to open up federal lands and waters to production, including in ANWR.

February 7, 2025

  1. The House passed H.R. 26, the Protecting American Energy Production Act, which prohibits the President from banning hydraulic fracturing unless Congress authorizes a moratorium.

February 14, 2025

  1. Announced the creation of the National Energy Dominance Council.
  2. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) announced the issuance of the Texas Gulflink LLC (TGL) Record of Decision (ROD) to Sentinel Midstream, LLC, which will own, construct, and operate a deepwater port for the export of domestically produced crude oil.
  3. Secretary Wright issues first LNG export approval since Biden-era freeze for Commonwealth LNG.

February 21, 2025

  1. Waivers to allow the year-round sale of E15.

February 25, 2025

  1. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) removes the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Code of Federal Regulations.

February 26, 2025

  1. The House of Representatives and the Senate voted to overturn a Biden-era rule imposing progressively higher fees on oil and natural gas companies for excess methane emissions, advancing the bill to President Trump for his signature.

February 28, 2025

  1. The Department of Energy announced an order that removes barriers for the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as marine fuel to power vessels. The order issued by DOE modifies a prior order issued to JAX LNG under the previous administration that asserted new oversight for the use of LNG to power marine vessels, also known as LNG bunkering.

March 5, 2025

  1. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright approved an LNG export permit extension for Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC, currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas.
  2. The Bureau of Land Management approved the Nevada North Lithium Exploration Project near Montello in Elko County. With this approval, Surge Battery Metals USA, Inc., is authorized to conduct lithium mineral exploration activities through phased exploration over the course of three years. The plan proposes disturbance of up to 250 total acres across 7,819 acres of public lands.

March 6, 2025

  1. The House of Representatives and the Senate passed S.J. Res. 11 to repeal Biden’s BOEM rule requiring archeological reports for oil and gas exploration or development plans on the OCS. (Signed by President Trump on March 13, 2025.)

March 10, 2025

  1. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright approved a liquefied natural gas export permit extension for Delfin LNG LLC, granting additional time to commence exports from the project proposed for offshore Louisiana.

March 12, 2025

  1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency will undertake 31 historic actions in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history, to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback including: Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0).
  2. EPA reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry (OOOO b/c).
  3. EPA reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program). 
  4. EPA reconsideration of limitations, guidelines and standards (ELG) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources (Steam Electric ELG). 
  5. EPA reconsideration of wastewater regulations for oil and gas development to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG). 
  6. EPA reconsideration of Biden-Harris Administration Risk Management Program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule). 
  7. EPA reconsideration of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations that provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate (Car GHG Rules). 
  8. EPA reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding (Endangerment Finding). 
  9. EPA reconsideration of technology transition rule that forces companies to use certain technologies that increased costs on food at grocery stores and semiconductor manufacturing (Technology Transition Rule). 
  10. EPA reconsideration of Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards that shut down opportunities for American manufacturing and small businesses (PM 2.5 NAAQS). 
  11. EPA reconsideration of multiple National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for American energy and manufacturing sectors (NESHAPs). 
  12. EPA restructuring the Regional Haze Program that threatened the supply of affordable energy for American families (Regional Haze). 
  13. Overhauling Biden-Harris Administration’s “Social Cost of Carbon.” 
  14. Redirecting enforcement resources to EPA’s core mission to relieve the economy of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens that drive up costs for American consumers (Enforcement Discretion). 
  15. EPA terminating Biden’s Environmental Justice and DEI arms of the agency (EJ/DEI). 
  16. EPA ending so-called “Good Neighbor Plan” which the Biden-Harris Administration used to expand federal rules to more states and sectors beyond the program’s traditional focus and led to the rejection of nearly all State Implementation Plans. 
  17. EPA is working with states and tribes to resolve massive backlog with State Implementation Plans and Tribal Implementation Plans that the Biden-Harris Administration refused to resolve (SIPs/TIPs). 
  18. EPA reconstituting Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (SAB/CASAC). 
  19. EPA prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update coal ash regulations (CCR Rule). 

March 13, 2025

  1. The Department of the Interior announced the approval of a federal mining plan modification by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for the Spring Creek Mine in Big Horn County, Montana, operated by the Navajo Transitional Energy Company. This decision extends the mine’s operational life by 16 years, enabling the production of approximately 39.9 million tons of federal coal and supporting 280 full-time jobs. 

March 20, 2025

  1. Executive Order taking immediate measures to increase American mineral production. The United States possesses vast mineral resources that can create jobs, fuel prosperity, and significantly reduce our reliance on foreign nations.  Transportation, infrastructure, defense capabilities, and the next generation of technology rely upon a secure, predictable, and affordable supply of minerals.
Download List As a PDF

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,

Chinese Firms Overtaking European EV Makers Despite Massive Subsidies

March 24, 2025 by Leave a Comment

Northvolt, an electric vehicle (EV) battery maker that was once one of Europe’s best-funded start-ups, filed for bankruptcy in its home country, Sweden. The company had contributed 76 gigawatt hours to the region’s gigafactory pipeline. Its failure reduces European-owned cell production capacity to 30% of Europe’s 2030 pipeline, benefiting Asian producers and raising doubts about the viability of Europe’s own battery sector. The company, which appeared to be Europe’s best chance to compete against China’s battery dominance, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States last year to buy it more time to raise money, but to no avail.

Northvolt was founded in 2015 by two former Tesla executives and has been struggling for months, cutting jobs and restructuring operations even before it pursued bankruptcy protection. A Swedish court-appointed trustee will oversee the company’s bankruptcy process, including the sale of the business and its assets and the settlement of outstanding obligations. The company’s subsidiaries, Northvolt Germany and Northvolt North America are not part of the bankruptcy proceedings in Sweden. Northvolt has plans to build factories in Germany and Canada.

Background

European carmakers get their batteries from South Korea’s LG Energy Solution and Samsung, and China’s world-leading producer, CATL. Northvolt’s goal was to capture 25 percent of the European battery market by 2030. Last year, the company secured a $5 billion loan from the European Union to expand its production. However, it was still not enough to counteract the company’s challenges, from accidents at a plant in Sweden to losing a contract with BMW worth $2.15 billion.

Northvolt’s main business was lithium-ion batteries, but in 2023, it said it had made a “fundamental breakthrough” in sodium-ion battery technology. The company likely tried to move too quickly — making battery cells is complex and expensive. New factories can take years to increase production and often have high failure rates because of problems during this process. Cells must be manufactured without impurities on automated assembly lines in dust-free environments using highly processed metals and chemicals. Furthermore, battery factories cost billions of dollars to build, and there is a shortage of engineers with the required expertise.

Northvolt’s Plans for a Factory in Canada

The company has plans to build a $7-billion factory in Quebec, Canada. The electric vehicle battery plant would be located in the Montérégie region on Montreal’s South Shore. The Quebec government pledged $2.9 billion in financing to secure the deal with Northvolt in 2023 and the Canadian government committed up to $1.34 billion to build the plant and another $3 billion worth of other incentives. So far, the Quebec government has invested $270 million in the project alongside $200 million from the provincial pension investor. Quebec granted Northvolt a further $240 million for the purchase of land in the Montérégie region.

Northvolt’s Germany Factory

Operations for Northvolt’s German subsidiary are to continue, but because the Swedish parent company wholly owns the factory project, its viability after bankruptcy proceedings is questionable. Construction work on the Northvolt factory near the northern German town of Heide began last year. The first cell assembly at Heide is scheduled to start in the second half of 2027 before the factory ramp-up begins. Early last year the European Commission approved funding and guarantees of $984 million for the Schleswig-Holstein plant.  German government subsidies for construction are expected to total around $765 million, with possible further guarantees of $220 million. Northvolt has already received around $656 million from the German state-owned development bank KfW, half guaranteed by the federal government and half by Schleswig-Holstein. Decisions regarding Northvolt assets and its future in Sweden and its subsidiaries will be made by an insolvency administrator appointed by the court.

China’s Battery Dominance

China leads the global EV production and battery manufacturing market, with CATL being the world’s largest battery producer by a wide margin. Chinese battery manufacturers are thriving, largely due to the surge in EV sales within China, where electric vehicles make up about half of all new car purchases. This market size gives Chinese battery makers a significant edge over international competitors.

Decades ago, China made a strategic decision to prioritize the development of electric vehicles and to support its domestic battery industry with substantial subsidies, which has put Western nations at a disadvantage. China’s focus on electric vehicles is partly driven by its limited domestic oil and gas resources, which it must import. It has turned a weakness into a strength, which Western nations have played to under the guise of climate policies. China expects most Western countries to become major importers of electric vehicles and their components as they progressively shift away from fossil fuels due to political policies, mandates, and subsidies stemming from their adherence to the UN’s Paris Accord. China, however, uses its massive fleet of coal-fired power plants to provide inexpensive energy to its manufacturing sector.

Conclusion

Northvolt’s bankruptcy is a significant blow to Europe’s desire to become self-sufficient and build its own EV battery supply chain to catch up to China, which has the world’s largest market for electric vehicles and dominates EV battery manufacturing. The company faced numerous challenges, including rising capital costs, geopolitical instability, supply chain disruptions, and shifts in market demand. Northvolt still has two subsidiaries in Germany and North America that have factories either under construction or on the drawing board, and the future of these factories is questionable. Decisions regarding its subsidiaries will be made by an insolvency administrator appointed by the court. The bankruptcy of Northvolt should alert Western lawmakers rushing to reach net-zero emissions regarding the implications of those policies upon the economic and national security of their countries.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #222: Shutdown Showdown

March 24, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the shakeout of the shutdown showdown, what Greenpeace’s legal defeat means for the future of Big Green, Inc. sponsored terrorism, and the latest news from the world of electricity.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Trump’s EPA To Embark On Largest Deregulation Effort In American History

March 19, 2025 by Leave a Comment

Lee Zeldin, President Trump’s Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced the biggest deregulation in U.S. history to rescind the onerous regulations from the Obama and Biden administrations. The agency is reviewing regulations with the intent of reversing 31 of the costliest regulations the agency has previously imposed, including backdoor electric vehicle (EV) mandates, the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, the Clean Power Plan, the social cost of carbon, and the mercury and air toxicity standards. These moves help fulfill President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, revitalize the U.S. auto industry, restore the rule of law and give power back to the States. Zeldin called it “the most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history,” pointing to Trump’s promise to make energy more affordable for American families and businesses. Zeldin is also terminating $20 billion in grants awarded to politically connected non-governmental organizations under sketchy circumstances by the Biden administration, ostensibly for climate and clean-energy projects.

The Biden administration finalized its Clean Power Plan rule in April 2024 to essentially shutter existing coal-fired plants and severely limit new gas-fired plants as part of its climate agenda. The plan requires existing coal-fired power plants and new baseload natural gas-fired power plants to install carbon capture technology by 2032 — a technology that is not yet commercially available — or shutter the plant in the case of existing coal plants. The Biden administration had also considered applying the requirements to existing natural gas plants in the future.

Biden’s Clean Power Plan was more onerous than the 2015 Clean Power Plan under the Obama administration, which set national standards for carbon emissions. The Supreme Court in 2022 struck down Obama’s Clean Power Plan in the case of West Virginia v. EPA, which curbed the EPA’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions. The Supreme Court held that the major questions doctrine barred EPA from misusing the Clean Air Act to shift the nation’s generating fuel mix from fossil fuels to renewables. Conservative lawmakers saw the rule as having a “catastrophic” effect on the nation’s electric grid because it could have severely hurt reliability as the favored renewables were intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The EPA will also look at rules that further restrict emissions of mercury and other air toxins, as well as a “good neighbor” rule intended to restrict emissions from blowing downwind to other states.

Zeldin is also rolling back greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy- and light-duty vehicles for model year 2027 and later, which was essentially an EV mandate since it restricted the availability of gasoline and diesel vehicles for sale. Under the tailpipe emission rule, the auto industry would need 56% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2032, along with at least 13% of sales to be plug-in hybrids or other partially electric cars, which would have been a huge increase over current EV sales, particularly with slowing demand for these vehicles.

The agency also said it will take steps to undo EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, a provision that forms the bedrock of the EPA’s greenhouse-gas regulations for motor vehicles and power plants. The so-called “endangerment finding” came as a result of a Supreme Court ruling in the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case that greenhouse gases are covered by the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court left it up to the EPA whether it wanted to expand its authority by controlling carbon dioxide emissions, and the EPA did. The EPA, under former President Barack Obama, finalized the finding in 2009.

The EPA also announced measures that would dial back regulations for the oil and gas industry, including the reporting of methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure. It would also consider allowing the reuse of drilling wastewater, potentially for agriculture and industry.

The EPA also targeted a clean water law interpretation that expanded federal power to regulate the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. EPA officials will listen to concerns from farmers and other groups worried about federal interference in how they use their land and then set limited, predictable, and lasting rules defining which waterways the Clean Water Act protects. In 2023, the Supreme Court justices, in Sackett v. EPA, sided with industry and agricultural interests that sought more flexibility around wetlands, finding that federal regulators had long wielded too much authority. Conservatives believe that the rule still protects too many wetlands and improperly limits private property rights.

The Zeldin changes will not take effect immediately, with nearly all requiring a long rulemaking process. Environmental groups said they would fight the rollbacks, while industry groups expressed support for the announcements. States are likely to be divided.

Conclusion

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is taking a hatchet to Obama and Biden’s regulatory agenda, looking to revise or rescind 31 onerous regulations that add costs to Americans for goods and energy. The regulations range from regulating emissions from power plants, which could shutter existing coal power plants, to limiting the type of cars available for purchase in favor of electric vehicles. Limiting consumer choice seemed to be a reoccurring theme of the Biden administration. These limitations not only took away options for Americans but could have been disastrous for the sustainability of the U.S. power grid as base load plants were attacked in favor of intermittent solar and wind plants. The regulatory changes will be fought in the courts and argued in Congress. Still, the direction from the EPA Administrator’s actions is clear: significant deregulation that will make it easier to build and make things in America is coming.

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast 221: Intractable

March 18, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the Continual Resolution battle in Congress, review the history of government shutdowns, and review the reviews of Gavin Newsom’s adventure into podcasting.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Congress, Not the GAO, Gets to Decide on the California Waiver

March 7, 2025 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (3/7/25) – President Trump has vowed to end the Biden administration’s electric vehicle mandate, which is driven by three key regulatory actions: the EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards, the CAFE standards, and California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation. The ACC II regulation, which was granted a waiver from Clean Air Act preemption during Biden’s lame duck period, is crucial, as it allows California to enforce stricter rules that influence other states. This creates a de facto EV mandate, with federal agencies relying on California’s program to justify their own regulations. 

On Thursday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a memo about overturning California’s Clean Air Act waiver under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Some media outlets misreported the memo as blocking Congress from voting to disapprove of the waiver. This misinterprets both the CRA and the role of the GAO.

The CRA grants Congress, not GAO, the power to approve or disapprove agency actions once submitted for review. GAO’s role is purely advisory and does not affect Congress’s authority to act. The California waiver, which includes a ban on internal combustion engine vehicles, was a clear overreach by the Biden administration. The law is clear – Congress gets to decide whether to validate or overturn the rule. The CRA offers Congress the opportunity to reassert control over regulatory policy and prevent this overreach from disrupting the market.

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

“Despite misleading reports, the Congressional Review Act is crystal clear: once an agency action is submitted to Congress, it is Congress—and Congress alone—that holds the unassailable power to approve or disapprove that action. The GAO’s role is purely advisory, with no legal authority to block Congress from exercising its constitutional duty. The California waiver, which seeks to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate, is a prime example of why the CRA exists: to ensure that Congress retains control over regulatory actions that significantly affect the American public. It is time for Congress to step in and put a stop to California’s electric vehicle mandate. Doing so will protect consumer choice and prevent unelected agencies from dictating the future of American transportation.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #220: We Found the Gold (Guest: Bob Murphy)

March 7, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna are joined by Institute for Energy Research alumni Bob Murphy for a review of Trump’s address to the joint session of Congress and a wide ranging discussion of energy issues in the news.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

Congress, Not the GAO, Gets to Decide on the California Waiver

March 7, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On Thursday, the Government Accountability Office released a memo responding to an inquiry from several Democratic Senators regarding waivers for California under the Clean Air Act and the Congressional Review Act. This memo was inaccurately reported by some outlets as suggesting that a CRA vote on a California waiver decision would be “illegal” or that the memo “blocks” Congress from voting to disapprove of the waiver grant. 

This reporting fundamentally misstates the nature of GAO and completely misunderstands the text of the CRA. Nothing in the text of the CRA empowers GAO, it has no statutory role to play in the CRA process. Legally, there is no difference between the GAO weighing in on the CRA process and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee commenting on the CRA process. Further, even if it did, GAO works for Congress; it has no power to bind or direct congressional action. Once an agency action has been submitted to Congress for review under the CRA, Congress, and Congress alone, is the decision maker. Congress should vote to disapprove of the California waiver for its Advanced Clean Cars II program, which includes a ban on internal combustion engine vehicles. 

The plain text of the CRA is very clear that once an agency action is submitted to Congress for review, Congress has the unreviewable power to consider and, if desired, disapprove of that action. The CRA requires a resolution of disapproval to be passed by both houses and signed by the president, which makes it binding federal statute under the Constitution, and the CRA withdraws any decision by Congress under the statute from court jurisdiction, stating “No determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.” There is no provision in the CRA that GAO must first signal approval prior to Congress acting under the CRA.

In an in-depth review of this issue for the Yale Journal of Regulation, Michael Buschbacher and Jimmy Conde explain GAO’s role: 

“A GAO advisory opinion that a submitted action is not a ‘rule’ subject to the CRA does not affect Congress’s unchallengeable power. GAO opinions have no formal legal effect and are not even something that the CRA authorizes or contemplates. As the CRS explains, they are part of an informal and ad hoc process that Congress developed to help monitor agencies’ attempts to evade CRA review by not submitting actions to Congress. This informal process allows a lawmaker to request an opinion from the GAO on whether an agency action withheld from Congress is in fact a ‘rule’ of ‘general applicability’ that the agency had to submit. If the GAO opines that it is, then Congress has historically treated this opinion’s submission to Congress as constructive submission of the action, which then starts the 60-day period for review under the CRA.” 

Both GAO and the Congressional Research Service are clear about this advisory, non-statutory role, as the above article further explains:

“The GAO, through its General Counsel, has testified to the Senate that the CRA does not give the GAO any power ‘to decide what a rule is’ and that the CRA only authorizes the GAO to act ‘in [its] role as adviser to the Congress’ on this question. The CRA’s text reinforces the GAO’s view of its advisory role because that statute never purports to empower the GAO—or anyone else—to decide for Congress what agency actions Congress may review. See also CRS R45248 (concluding that GAO opinions are merely advisory) and CRS IF11096 (recognizing that the GAO process ‘has developed outside the statute’). There is simply no basis in law to argue that the informal role Congress gratuitously assigned the GAO to increase agency accountability can somehow be turned on its head to insulate submitted agency actions from CRA review.”

This state of affairs makes perfect constitutional sense. Congress makes the laws, and Congress gets to decide what laws it makes. A memo from the GAO cannot stop Congress from passing a law.

The California waiver is a perfect example of why the Congressional Review Act was created in the first place. California’s ACC II program is a sweeping, nationwide reordering of the motor vehicles market. Indeed, the EPA itself has never been granted the power by Congress to do what California is attempting to do with its electric vehicle mandate. The Biden administration approved this massive power grab through the back door with the waiver process precisely to circumvent Congress. The CRA sought to reassert Congress’s role in the regulatory process, and this is a golden opportunity to do so.

The California waiver is an integral part of the Biden administration’s three-pronged de facto electric vehicle mandate. While there is a regulatory process for withdrawing the waiver, it is a long and uncertain path that will impose compliance costs and market disruptions while the decision winds its way through the courts. A CRA disapproval resolution from Congress, however, definitively ends California’s overreaching attempt to tell Americans what kind of cars they are allowed to drive. Congress can and should shut this adventurism down with all haste.

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

Congress Repeals Biden’s Natural Gas Tax

March 6, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The House of Representatives and the Senate voted to overturn a Biden-era rule imposing progressively higher fees on oil and natural gas companies for excess methane emissions, advancing the bill to President Trump for his signature. The House vote was 220-206 and the Senate vote was 52-47. The measure was part of Biden’s climate law, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. However, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not formally set rules until late last year, Congress could use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal it. The CRA allows Congress to pass a resolution to undo rules finalized towards the end of a president’s term. If those resolutions pass and the president signs them, the rule is terminated, and agencies cannot issue a similar rule again.

The methane fee was to start at $900 per metric ton of methane released above the government’s threshold amount in 2024 and to be paid this year, increasing to $1,200 per metric ton based on 2025 emissions, and $1,500 per metric ton based on 2026 emissions and for each year thereafter. The rule applies to oil and gas facilities reporting annual methane emissions greater than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. According to EPA projections, the fees could amount to $560 million in fines this year. Opponents believe the overall cost of complying with the regulation will likely be much higher.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, the fee is a “duplicative, punitive tax on American energy production that stifles innovation.” Fees incurred by the industry will be passed on to consumers, who will pay more for energy through this backdoor tax.

Besides the fee, the Biden administration’s EPA and Interior Department have other regulations affecting emissions of methane from oil and gas operations that will remain in place even if the methane fee is repealed. Biden’s Bureau of Land Management implemented a rule to cut gas leakage from oil and gas production on federal lands by tightening limits on gas flaring on federal land and requiring energy companies to detect methane leaks better. The rule imposes monthly limits on flaring and charges fees for flaring that exceeds those limits. Flaring sometimes occurs because of inadequate pipeline take-away capacity due to pipelines awaiting government permits.

Biden’s EPA implemented a methane reduction plan that includes emissions from existing oil and gas wells nationwide, rather than focusing only on new wells, as previous EPA regulations have done. It also regulates smaller wells, which emit less than 3 tons of methane per year, that are now required to find and plug methane leaks.

The methane fee is punitive as the oil and gas industry has already been making progress on reducing methane emissions. Between 2015 and 2022, the industry reduced methane emissions by 37% across onshore production regions, according to EPA data. One hundred companies representing nearly 70% of U.S. onshore oil and natural gas production participated in a partnership that achieved 6.6% in reduced flare intensity and a 10% reduction in total flare volumes in 2023. By implementing robust leak detection and repair programs, companies reduced their occurrence rate from a reported 0.16% in 2018 to 0.06% in 2023.

The industry would prefer to capture and sell its excess methane, but infrastructure limitations, such as insufficient pipeline capacity, often hinder them. This shortage is primarily due to the challenges of securing federal permits, which forces companies to flare the methane. If the necessary permits were granted and pipelines built, the issue could be resolved, potentially preventing any increase in consumer costs.

Other Measures to be Repealed by the CRA

There are roughly 40 resolutions targeting Biden-era rules that Congress hopes to rescind using the CRA. Rules finalized in August or later are subject to repeal using the CRA with a deadline to act by mid-May. These resolutions include a measure rolling back Energy Department efficiency standards for gas-fired tankless hot water heaters that recently passed the House of Representatives at a vote of 221 to 198 and a resolution rescinding an Interior Department rule requiring offshore oil and gas leaseholders to submit archaeological reports before production, which recently passed the Senate. The water heater ban would increase the cost of a water heater by about $400 to $800 and put thousands of Americans out of work since the heaters are made in the United States.

Other rules being targeted for repeal include regulations on electric vehicles. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has requested Congress use the CRA to reject Biden’s EPA’s approval of a California Clean Air Act rule that would encourage the use of more electric vehicles. Several other states follow California’s auto emission standards.

There are also plans to cut the Energy Conservation-Appliance Standards for certification and labeling, by which appliances must meet specific standards to receive a label informing consumers that they are energy-efficient. The standards slow the introduction of products to market, limit consumer options, and affect the supply chain. Companies can also advertise their products’ energy-saving benefits to consumers, if they choose to focus on that as part of their marketing.

Other climate-related rules being considered include the Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf, which is a list of strict regulations on offshore oil drilling in high-pressure and temperature environments, which increase burdens on energy operations and raise costs for consumers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Guidance Regarding the Listing of Voluntary Carbon Credit Derivative Contracts that establishes standards to buy and sell carbon credits to offset emissions is also being considered as the rule prioritizes environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, which most American firms are abandoning as a passing fad inconsistent with their fiduciary responsibilities.

Conclusion

The House and Senate have passed a bill to eliminate the methane fee on oil and gas operations, which is contained in the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), using the Congressional Review Act. Although the IRA was passed in 2022, the Biden administration did not set the rule until the end of last year, allowing the CRA to be used. Congress is expected to use the CRA to rescind about 40 resolutions stemming from the Biden administration that were primarily part of his climate plan to transition the U.S. energy system to net-zero, raising consumer costs. The CRA is a valuable and expeditious way to reverse oftentimes expensive and injurious regulations foisted upon consumers at the very end of an administration leaving office, and Congress is putting it to good use.

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

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

Key Vote YES on H.J. Res. 42

March 5, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports H.J. Res. 42, providing for congressional disapproval of certain Department of Energy appliance standards.

Energy efficiency standards were created 50 years ago when politicians feared we were running out of domestic energy sources and dangerously reliant on the Middle East. That world is long past and the U.S. is the world’s leading natural gas, as well as leading oil, producer. Additionally, technology development has made appliances enormously efficient in energy use, so efficient that new energy efficiency rules, as restrictive and destructive as they are, would only theoretically save customers a few dollars a year. Such meager supposed savings, at the cost of convenience and consumer choice, in pursuit of obsolete goals expose the pointless destructiveness of energy efficiency mandates. Indeed, under the previous administration these rules were wielded not to save customers money, but rather to try to force customers to stop using the energy sources that the previous administration disliked. Congress should decisively reject this abuse of an antiquated statute at every opportunity.

A YES vote on H.J. Res. 42 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Filed Under: Blog, Scorecard Tagged With: , , , , ,
Previous
Next