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

President Trump Saves Ratepayers From EVEN MORE Offshore Boondoggles

May 15, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Reuters reports that two offshore wind projects, Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind, will end their offshore wind leases in exchange for reimbursements of $885 million; the money will be invested by them in oil and gas instead. The projects, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific, are managed by Ocean Winds, a joint venture between France’s ENGIE and Portugal’s EDP Renewables. Bluepoint Wind is an offshore wind project off the coasts of New Jersey and New York, and Golden State Wind is a floating offshore wind project proposed off California’s central coast. Both companies will not pursue any new offshore wind projects in the United States, according to the Interior Department. Offshore wind is a very expensive technology in its own right and, as with onshore wind, it needs back-up power when the wind does not blow, requiring additional systems costs.

Ocean Winds partnered with a unit of asset manager ‌BlackRock ⁠on Bluepoint Wind, and with Reventus Power, a London-based offshore wind investment firm, in the Golden State Wind project off California. Global Infrastructure Partners, the BlackRock unit, agreed to invest $765 million, the bid amount for Bluepoint Wind, in a U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. In addition, Golden State Wind will be ​able to recover $120 ⁠million in lease fees after it invests a similar amount in oil and gas, energy infrastructure, or LNG projects.

This buyout comes after the Interior Department bought out the offshore wind leases from French energy company TotalEnergies, which is receiving nearly a $1 billion refund for its leases off the coasts of North Carolina and New York. According to Reuters, it paid $795 million for the New York ​lease at an auction during the Biden administration. TotalEnergies will invest the money in U.S. oil and gas projects, investing $928 million in 2026 in the development of four trains at the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas, and in the development of upstream conventional oil in the U.S. Gulf and shale ​gas production. The United States ⁠will terminate Total’s leases in the Carolina Long Bay area and the New York Bight area, both executed in 2022. TotalEnergies has pledged not to develop any new offshore wind projects in the United States.

According to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, “The companies that bid for these offshore wind leases were basically sold a product in 2022 that was only viable when propped up by massive taxpayer subsidies. Now that hardworking Americans are no longer footing the bill for expensive, unreliable, intermittent energy projects, companies are once again investing in affordable, reliable, secure energy infrastructure.”

The Associated Press reports that a number of states and the District of Columbia had challenged in court an executive order from President Trump blocking wind energy projects. In December, a federal judge vacated President Trump’s executive order, finding it unlawful, resulting in the administration taking other actions to end offshore wind projects. Democrats in Congress are now investigating the Trump administration’s move to buy out offshore wind leases and use the investment funds for oil and gas projects in the United States. U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, and Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, are demanding information about the TotalEnergies agreement with the administration.

2025 Bill Phases Out Tax Credits for Wind and Solar

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out clean electricity investment and production tax credits for wind and solar after decades of subsidies. Originally intended for nascent industries, the investment credit was significantly enhanced in 2005, having been initially introduced in 1978 and having been extended 15 times. The production credit has been in place since 1992 and has been extended more than a dozen times. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act essentially made these credits unlimited since the requirement for sunsetting them was based on heavy reductions of carbon dioxide emissions in the generation sector, which may have never been met. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act significantly shortened the timeline for developers to receive the wind and solar tax credits. In order to qualify for the tax credits, developers must start construction by July 2026 and reach commercial operation by the end of 2028.

Analysis

Offshore wind is very expensive and requires backup power when there is insufficient wind to generate electricity. As we’ve explained previously, “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.” With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phasing out tax credits for wind and solar projects, the economics of offshore wind are no longer as viable as they were when the leases were purchased.

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

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

Landowners Fighting Back Against New York Fracking Ban

May 15, 2026 by Leave a Comment

E&E News reports that a father and son who own the mineral rights to 164 acres of land in upstate New York are suing the state in federal court to challenge the state’s ban on fracking. According to the lawsuit, NY’s ban on fracking is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment because it deprives the landowners of productive use of their property, amounting to an unfair taking by the government. Their case is being handled by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which supports private property rights. The state’s bans on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, carbon dioxide fracturing, and propane gel fracturing, which effectively prohibit all development of the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations, amount to an impermissible government taking, according to the suit. These formations extend across the border into Pennsylvania, where they have been developed safely and extensively for over fifteen years. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the state from enforcing the ban.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit is relevant to issues of energy independence and affordability. While banning hydraulic fracturing, New York State imports nearly 85% of its energy, with much of it in the form of natural gas coming from fracked basins in Pennsylvania. New York consumers pay high prices as the state’s residential electricity costs average between 24 and 27 cents per kilowatt-hour — approximately 40% above the national average — and natural gas prices run about 22.8% above the national average.

Background

In 2011, Madison Woodward III, a geologist, and his son Thomas purchased land in Delaware County that was on a rich natural gas reserve with the expectation that they would be allowed to develop the natural gas resources beneath their property. Three years later, on December 17, 2014, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo determined that there were too many unanswered questions regarding fracking to move forward with the technology, despite the fact that economically depressed areas of Upstate New York would have reaped benefits enjoyed by Pennsylvania landowners next door. He issued an executive order banning fracking. In 2020, the New York State legislature codified the ban in statute and imposed an indefinite moratorium on propane gel fracturing, followed by a 2024 ban on carbon dioxide-based fracturing.

According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, propane gel fracking is different from hydraulic fracturing in that the process uses gelled propane that can be recovered and reused instead of using millions of gallons of water and sand. The propane returns to a gaseous state after extraction, leaving no wastewater needing to be disposed of. The technology is available, and operators are ready to use it.

With the legislature’s ruling after the Woodwards purchased the property, they lost the ability to use the mineral rights they had purchased. Mineral rights are the legal ownership of the natural resources beneath land. The Woodwards sold the surface rights to the land in 2019, but had held onto the mineral rights, hoping that technology would eventually allow the natural gas to be developed. But New York banned all forms of technology that would allow that development.

The basis of the lawsuit is that while New York has the right to set energy policy, the financial cost of that policy should not fall on the shoulders of people who invested in good faith under the laws in effect at the time of purchase. The landowner or mineral rights owner should not have to pay for the decision made by the state.

Analysis

These actions show that New York tends to shut down new and innovative technologies without sufficient study, as was the case with the 2024 law banning carbon dioxide fracturing. The moratorium on propane gel fracturing without a timeline is effectively a ban. New York has frozen out an entire industry that would create jobs and lower energy costs in the state, where costs are among the highest in the nation.

As the Pacific Legal Foundation explains, New York must either compensate property owners for appropriating their mineral estates or allow them to make productive use of their property. The state’s current approach effectively prohibits any viable extraction methods and violates the Constitution. The suit will be heard in federal court.

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

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

New Report Highlights Dangers Of Government Auto Mandates

May 13, 2026 by Leave a Comment

In 2024, the Biden administration finalized the tailpipe emissions rule that effectively forced electric vehicles (EVs) on the American public, as automakers could not meet the mandate only by making changes to internal combustion vehicles. Furthermore, automakers felt the regulation would not be achievable for model years 2027 to 2032 due to challenging market demand for EVs, lack of charging infrastructure, loss of federal EV incentives, supply chain challenges, and affordability issues. While the Trump administration is making changes to both the Biden tailpipe emissions rules and the Biden auto efficiency standards that mandate the increased EV penetration in the U.S. auto market, the Annual Energy Outlook 2026 incorporated the laws and regulations in effect by December 2025.

For the transportation sector, the 2026 outlook included the early expiration of clean vehicle and charging infrastructure tax credits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in all cases. However, the Counterfactual Baseline included the Biden Environmental Protection Agency’s Model Year 2027–2032 tailpipe emissions standards, and evaluated the impact of removing it in the Alternative Transportation case and the Combination case, which also includes the Alternate Electricity case.

In these cases, the Annual Energy Outlook 2026 found that transportation energy use would decrease from 27 quads in 2025 to between 21 and 25 quads in 2050, despite increasing travel demand as newer, more efficient powertrains make up a larger portion of on-road vehicles. The larger decreases occur when the Biden 2024 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Model Year 2027–2032 tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards are enforced, as the standards require significant fuel-efficiency improvements and greater adoption of zero-emission vehicles. In these cases, energy use by the transportation sector falls by 13% to 25% between 2025 and 2050, compared to about 9% in cases where these standards are not enforced.

When the tailpipe emissions rule is suspended, the share of registered light-duty battery EVs and zero-emission freight trucks on the road decreases. The EV share of the light-duty vehicle stock decreases from about 40% to 46% in 2050 in cases that incorporate the tailpipe emissions rule, to about 18% in cases that do not include it. Zero-emission freight trucks, including both battery electric and fuel cell powertrains, decrease from about 21% to 24% in 2050 in cases that include the rule, to about 5% in cases that do not.

According to the Energy Information Administration, new vehicles remain on the road for an average of 18 to 28 years, depending on type and usage. As a result, the mix of new vehicle sales changes more rapidly than the total on-road vehicle stock. Light-duty battery electric vehicles reach 50% of total light-duty vehicle sales by 2032 in most outlook cases, while it takes an additional 28 years for them to attain 46% of total light-duty vehicle on-road stocks.

In cases that incorporate the tailpipe emissions rule, the share of electric light-duty vehicles and zero-emission freight trucks sold increases through 2032 as the rule tightens, then levels off. By 2032, about 53% of light-duty vehicles sold in the United States each year are expected to be electric before stabilizing. Without the rule, the EV sales share gradually increases to around 20% by 2050. Similarly, sales of zero-emission freight trucks increase to about 30% in 2032 in cases that incorporate the tailpipe emissions rule, and then remain relatively steady through the projection period. Without the rule, sales of zero-emissions freight trucks do not begin increasing until the 2040s, when falling battery costs are expected to make electric freight trucks more economical. In the absence of the rule, they increase to about 20% of all freight truck sales by the end of the projection period.

In the Alternative Transportation case, where the emissions tailpipe rule is not in place, electricity demand decreases, and oil demand increases relative to other cases. By 2050, liquid fuel consumption is three million barrels per day higher in the Alternative Transportation case than in the Counterfactual Baseline case, with 2.3 million barrels per day of the additional consumption as motor gasoline and 0.7 million barrels per day as distillate. With higher domestic demand, refiners in the United States process about 1.1 million barrels per day more oil in 2050 compared with the Counterfactual Baseline case, and product exports decrease by about 1.7 million barrels per day.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Despite higher prices at the pump, domestic crude oil production does not increase proportionately because a larger share of oil refiners’ feedstock comes from trade. In the Alternate Transportation Case, U.S. oil exports decrease by about 0.5 million barrels per day, and U.S. oil imports increase by about 0.3 million barrels per day compared with the Counterfactual Baseline case. With less electricity demand from the transportation sector, the EIA projects 9% less electricity sales than in the Counterfactual Baseline case.

Analysis

The 2026 Annual Energy Outlook incorporates Biden’s tailpipe emissions rule in its Counterfactual baseline. The rule was effectively a mandate for EV sales, which the cases clearly depict. Without it, EV sales fall relative to the baseline, indicating that projections of rising EV sales are largely driven by government incentives rather than consumer preferences. As we explain in When Government Chooses Your Car, “History shows that top-down mandates often fail to achieve their intended outcomes, imposing significant costs and generating resentment among those most affected by the regulations.”

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

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

California’s Drivers In Especially Dire Straits Due To State Policies

May 13, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Over the past seven months, California has lost about 17% of its refining capacity with the closure of two refineries: the Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles and the Valero refinery near San Francisco. Their combined loss has resulted in California’s refined product imports reaching almost 345,000 barrels per day through April 10 of this year, up 38% year over year, Argus reports. According to AAA, the average gasoline price in California as of May 7 was $6.17 per gallon, $1.61 more than the national average of $4.56. With these two refinery closures, California now has 11 refineries, down from 42 refineries 40 years ago. The Western Gateway refined products pipeline could help lower imports once it comes online in 2029. The developers, Phillips 66 and Kinder Morgan, expect to make a final investment decision on it by mid- to late summer.

While imports are increasing the cost of gasoline in California, most of the difference between U.S. average national gas prices and California’s average price is due to policies and regulations that lawmakers in the state have instituted, many in the name of climate change. They include the highest state gas tax in the nation at $0.709 per gallon and hidden fees that result from a cap-and-trade program to lower greenhouse gas emissions, a low-carbon fuel program, underground gas storage fees, and a state and local sales tax, which all add to the price of gasoline. While fuel tax revenues are supposed to be used for road repair, California wants to divert some of those revenues to subsidize “green” jet fuel production. California’s roads rank 49th out of the 50 states, with only Alaska’s roads ranking worse. Governor Newsom has proposed a $1 to $2 credit for every gallon of alternative jet fuel, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), “produced for use in California,” that would come from the road repair budget.

But the higher self-imposed prices and road disrepair are not the only problems facing Californians, as a team of researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley warns that the state could soon face energy crisis conditions created by its policies and the supply issues associated with the conflict in Iran. The Iran conflict is exacerbating issues with the state’s refinery closures and decline in oil production as the state now must rely on imports of gasoline, which it mostly receives from Asian refiners. Asia provides nearly all of California’s gasoline imports — roughly 20% of the overall gasoline supply for the state. Asian refiners are oil supply-constrained by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and have been forced to curtail exports of refined products since the beginning of March. Because it takes roughly 25 to 45 days for tankers to make the trip across the Pacific Ocean, the impacts would probably not begin to be felt by Californians until the end of April.

California is searching for other alternatives, but the state’s specific requirements for gasoline, classified as a “boutique” fuel, are not widely produced. California has even purchased gasoline from U.S. Gulf Coast refineries via the Bahamas. The east to the Bahamas, then west to California route was used so that California could comply with the Jones Act, which requires U.S. commodities to be moved between U.S. ports by U.S.-flagged ships crewed by U.S. personnel. Using U.S.-flagged ships would have increased shipping costs because there are just 55 Jones Act-compliant oil tankers worldwide, compared with more than 7,000 oil tankers globally. Due to the conflict in Iran, President Trump waived the Jones Act first for 30 days and then for an additional 90 days.

The Western Gateway Pipeline

Phillips 66 and Kinder Morgan have proposed a 1,300-mile pipeline that will carry petroleum products from Illinois to California and adjacent markets. Its planned design would combine new and existing infrastructure. The Western Gateway Pipeline’s completion date by 2029 is dependent on the receipt of permits and regulatory approvals. Once complete, it would be the world’s largest fuel conduit. The pipeline network would cross from Illinois through Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada to California and adjacent markets, with connectivity to Las Vegas, Nevada. Much of the pipeline would be built along or use existing Kinder Morgan conduits, with a new section across New Mexico. The section of the pipeline that would cross near Mescalero Apache land in New Mexico has received buy-in from local tribes, but past pipeline projects have often been caught up in lawsuits and protests.

Analysis

Like Europe, California is facing an energy crisis due to its anti-oil-and-gas policies, which are resulting in refinery closures, declining state oil production, and overreliance on imports, particularly for gasoline, a boutique fuel with specific requirements. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exacerbated the issues California faced before the war. As IER President Tom Pyle explains, “The Iran-related shock simply magnified a pattern that was already in place: red states and the interior Midwest enjoyed noticeably lower prices, thanks to geography, proximity to production, and lighter regulatory burdens. Blue-state policies, especially California’s, exported higher costs across borders.”

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #273: Ebb and Flow

May 11, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle, Mike McKenna, and Alex Stevens discuss California’s unfolding self-imposed energy emergency, the latest updates from the IPCC, new data on data centers, the future of OPEC and more.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Another PTC/ITC Extension for Wind/Solar? Just Say NO

May 7, 2026 by Leave a Comment

“The continued reliance on ‘clean’ energy tax credits is a political crutch…. Those who have introduced this legislation … should be working to phase out these subsidies more quickly, not doubling down on them.” – Tom Pyle, AEA president (below)

A recent press release by the American Energy Alliance (the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research) called it an “Election-Year Betrayal to Reinstate Wind and Solar Subsidies.” For two energies touting their affordability for consumers, this is disingenuous. Socializing the cost-premium to taxpayers, and unnecessarily industrializing the pristine landscape (real ecologists, please stand up) is bad public policy. And with more than a dozen extensions of the “temporary tax credits” (15 for solar, 14 for wind), the mirage of competitiveness by an infant industry (not) is exposed.

The full press release follows:

WASHINGTON DC (4/29/26) – Last Thursday, a small group of Republican Congressmen, led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), introduced legislation to remove the deadlines placed under the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act on renewable tax credits, including the Wind Production Tax Credit and the Solar Investment Tax Credit.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle issued the following statement: 

“The continued reliance on ‘clean’ energy tax credits is a political crutch that forces taxpayers to subsidize technologies that clearly cannot stand on their own. Those who have introduced this legislation – many of whom voted to pass the OBBB – should be working to phase out these subsidies more quickly, not doubling down on them.

“With all of these Members facing a battle for reelection, it’s surprising that subsidizing large corporations is their number one priority. Introducing legislation now to eliminate the tax credit deadlines is the obvious bait-and-switch we warned about a year ago, as these members push to revive preferential treatment for their favored industries. As I have said before, extending green giveaways on the backs of taxpayers is shortsighted and neglectful. The American people deserve better than the fast one these Members are trying to pull.” 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research on the Master Resource Commentary Blog.

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

AEA Joins With 35 Free Market Groups to Urge Repeal of Jones Act

May 6, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On Wednesday, May 6, 2026 the American Energy Alliance joined with 35 other free market advocacy groups in sending a letter to members of Congress. The group, lead by Americans for Prosperity, is urging Congress to immediately pass a full repeal of the Jones Act. The full text of the letter is available below:

Dear Members of Congress,

We commend President Trump’s decision to issue an additional 90-day suspension of the century-old Jones Act, and we ask Congress to make the suspension permanent by repealing this outdated law.

The Jones Act requires cargo shipped domestically to be carried on vessels that are U.S.-built, owned, and flagged and crewed by Americans. While originally intended to strengthen American maritime capabilities, it has become a costly, counterproductive barrier to efficient commerce.

Its repeal is long overdue.

President Trump’s recent waiver to “allow vital resources like oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and coal to flow freely to U.S. ports” underscores the need to repeal this law permanently. Without the Jones Act, markets will function better, supply will increase, and costs will decline. By contrast, every day the law remains in force it constrains supply, stifles competition, and drives up costs for American families. These impacts fall especially hard on residents of noncontiguous states and territories such as Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Beyond its economic toll on average Americans, the Jones Act represents a departure from free-market principles. It distorts competition, protects entrenched interests, and has failed to deliver on its central promise of a robust domestic maritime fleet. A couple of examples.

Today, of the roughly 7,500 oil tankers operating globally, only 54 comply with Jones Act requirements. The situation is worse when it comes to Jones Act-compliant liquid natural gas tankers. We have none – the one currently operating to supply Puerto Rico does so only under an exemption because it was foreign-made. The U.S. can ship natural gas to some 30 countries globally but cannot ship it from one part of the U.S. to another.

The current U.S.-Iran engagement and resulting energy disruptions underscore the urgency of the temporary waiver. But long after the worldwide energy disruptions are gone, the Jones Act will still be making everything cost more – unless it is repealed.

With President Trump’s tremendous leadership, we are confident that Congress can take action to end the Jones Act and help lower the cost of living for all Americans.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brent Gardner,
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity

John Shelton,
Vice President of Policy, Advancing American Freedom

Phil Kerpen,
President, American Commitment

Tom Pyle,
President, American Energy Alliance

David Ibsen,
Executive Director, Americans for Free Markets

Grover Norquist, President,
Americans for Tax Reform

Caleb Brown,
CEO, Bluegrass Institute

Ryan Ellis,
President, Center for a Free Economy

Daniel J. Mitchell,
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

David Ozgo,
Executive Director, Center for Transportation Advancement

John Phelan,
Economist, Center of the American Experiment

Chuck Muth,
President, Citizen Outreach

Tom Schatz,
President, Citizens Against Government Waste

Ryan Young,
Senior Economist & Director of Publications, Competitive Enterprise Institute

John Vick,
Executive Director, Concerned Veterans for America

James Czerniawski,
Head of Emerging Technology Policy, Consumer Choice Center

Jason Pye,
Founder, Exiled Policy

Brian Norman,
Director of State Affairs, Goldwater Institute

Keli’i Akina,
President & CEO, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Gabriella Hoffman,
Director, Center for Energy and Conservation, Independent Women’s Forum

Tom Giovanetti,
President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Sara Albrecht,
Chairman and CEO, Liberty Justice Center

Charles Sauer,
Founder & President, Market Institute

Pete Sepp,
President, National Taxpayers Union

Jon Decker,
Senior Fellow, Parkview Institute

Stephen Stepanek,
President, Pine Tree Public Policy LLC

Eric Ventimiglia,
Executive Director, Pinpoint Policy Institute

Jorge L. Rodriguez,
Founder & CEO, Puerto Rico Institute for Economic Liberty

Nan Swift,
Senior Fellow, R Street Institute

Paul Gessing,
President, Rio Grande Foundation
Joshua Sewell,
Director of Research and Policy, Taxpayers for Common Sense

Sandra Benitez,
Executive Director, The LIBRE Initiative
Christopher Butler,
Executive Director, Tholos Foundation

Kent Kaiser,
Executive Director, Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Vance Ginn,
Chief Economist, Trump 45 White House OMB

Casey Given,
Executive Director, Young Voices

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

President Trump Signs Repeal Of Biden’s Minnesota Mining Ban

May 4, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On April 16, the U.S. Senate narrowly voted to overturn a 20-year mining ban imposed by the Biden administration on a national forest in northeastern Minnesota. The House had approved the bill on January 21, and President Trump signed it on April 27. The bill reverses the previous administration’s mining ban on 225,504 acres in the Superior National Forest and will allow Twin Metals to begin mining on land controlled by the federal government after obtaining leases from the Trump administration. The company wants to build a copper and nickel mine about five miles southwest of the wilderness area, where an estimated four billion tons of copper and nickel ore are located. The area is believed to hold one of the world’s largest undeveloped mineral deposits.

As The Epoch Times reports, in 2023, President Biden imposed the order to block mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the surrounding watershed located in the Superior National Forest for 20 years, until 2043. The area is a world-class deposit, containing copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, gold, cobalt, and silver. Biden’s Department of the Interior blocked the nearly $3 billion mine over stated concerns about the safety of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness inside the national forest. The Biden administration, however, failed to properly transmit the required notice to Congress about the ban, allowing the vote to overturn the ban to come under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the authority to review and disapprove federal actions within 60 Senate session days of the action’s submission.

The Sierra Club claims that mineral mining bans had not been considered rules that are subject to the Congressional Review Act in past administrations. It and other environmental groups plan to continue their fight against mining in the area. According to Twin Metals, the proposed mine would not cause ecological damage because it would comply with Minnesota’s strict water-quality standards.

According to the New York Times, Twin Metals has not yet decided where to send the copper extracted in Minnesota for processing. As of last year, China controlled more than half of global copper refining, according to data from research firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. Copper is a crucial component in many products, including cellphones, electric vehicles, and military aircraft, and it is essential for construction and electrification. The United States is heavily reliant on imported copper from Chile, Canada, and other countries.

Background

The leases sought by Twin Metals date back to the 1960s in an area outside the Boundary Waters wilderness, but within its watershed. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) renewed the leases in 1984, and Twin Metals Mining sought an additional 10-year renewal after it acquired the leases in 2012. In 2016, the Obama administration’s Interior Department directed the BLM not to renew the leases amid the possibility of a mining ban in the region. The Trump administration later reversed course by issuing a legal opinion declaring the leases valid and extending them for 10 years.

In 2021, the Biden administration began a review of the potential impacts of mining on the “natural and cultural resources” of the area and placed a two-year pause on new leasing. The following year, Interior canceled the Twin Metals leases, arguing that the Trump-era decision had contained “significant legal deficiencies.” The Twin Metals mining company sued the Biden administration, calling its actions unlawful and contradictory to the nation’s need for “clean” energy. According to Twin Metals’ Dean DeBeltz, “Our plan is backed by decades of exploration and analysis and is rooted in the most environmentally sophisticated design, which is tailored for our project location and mineral deposit. It deserves a fair evaluation by federal regulators based on its merits.”

Analysis

Congress acted wisely to end the Biden administration’s moratoria on mining in northeastern Minnesota, where 95% of the nation’s nickel reserves and 88% of American cobalt reserves are found, as well as copper and other critical minerals. Precluding mines in the United States simply shifts investment and jobs to foreign shores, placing those nations in the driver’s seat of the United States’ energy future. According to a 2025 report, America’s Mineral Reserves: Unlocking Our $12 Trillion Treasure Chest, by Unleash Prosperity, “To support and defend the world’s largest, technology-based, environmentally friendly, and free economy, we must redesign the existing domestic mining permitting and regulatory gauntlet in order to enable the free market to produce the critical minerals and metals that America needs now. Without reliable mineral supply chains, the nation can neither insulate itself from the impacts of global conflict nor protect its domestic interests.”

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #272: Send Him Back

May 4, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle, Mike McKenna, and Alex Stevens discuss the fallout of UAE’s departure from OPEC, Lee Zeldin’s latest adventures on Capitol Hill, and the continual decline of NYC.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: ,

AEA Joins With 16 Free Market Groups to Urge Passage of REINS Act

April 30, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On Thursday, April 30, 2026 the American Energy Alliance joined with 16 other free market advocacy groups in sending a letter to the leadership of the Missouri State Senate. The group, lead by American Commitment, is urging Missouri’s Senate leadership to pass the REINS Act immediately. The full text of the letter is available below:

4/30/2026

Dear Missouri Senate Leadership,

The clock is running out on the current legislative session, and with it, a critical opportunity to establish effective legislative control of major regulations in Missouri.  On behalf of the thousands of Missouri constituents and supporters of the signatory organizations, we are writing to urge Senate Leadership to place HB 2559 on the Senate calendar for a vote before adjournment.

For too long, unelected bureaucrats have enjoyed a blank check to bypass the people’s representatives, imposing regulations that carry the full force of law without a single vote being cast by an elected official.  Fourteen states have passed a REINS Act to require affirmative legislative approval of new regulations and break this cycle.  Missouri should join them.

Legislatures, of course, are capable of making bad regulatory decisions, but many of the worst ideas would be stopped and bad ideas that are approved would have to be defended to voters.  Knowing regulations will come back for approval also forces legislators to write better laws to begin with, rather than punting difficult decisions to bureaucrats with broad or vague provisions.

The Missouri REINS Act would require that any proposed regulation with an economic impact exceeding $250,000 must receive explicit approval from the General Assembly before it can take effect.  The bill includes necessary exemptions for emergency rules and federal compliance, ensuring the state can still function during crises.

Polling shows that 75% of Missouri voters believe the legislature should have the final say on regulations that impact the economy. 

This also represents a state-level version of a Trump Administration national priority that has been blocked by Democratic filibuster.  Establishing the principle of legislative accountability at the state level would build momentum for this desperately needed reform to advance at the federal level in the future, as legislators accustomed to this process move to Congress.

If the Senate fails to act now, it would mean refusing to do the basic legislative work of voting on the major regulations that affect the Missouri economy.  We urge you not to let another session slip away while the regulatory burden on Missouri families and businesses grows unchecked.

Sincerely,

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
American Association of Senior Citizens

Tom Pyle
American Energy Alliance

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

Dan Mitchell
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

David McIntosh
Club for Growth

Wayne Crews
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Thomas A. Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Andrew Langer
CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Seton Motley
Less Government

Charles Sauer
The Market Institute

Gregg Keller
Missouri Century Foundation

Jon Decker
Parkview Institute

James L. Martin
60 Plus Association

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Stephen Moore
Unleash Prosperity Now

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,
Next