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

Historic Victory: President Trump Rescinds 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding

February 12, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (2/12/26) – Today, President Donald J. Trump stood with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to announce the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding in July 2025.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“Thank you, President Trump and Administrator Zeldin, for this historic victory for American energy freedom, economic prosperity, and commonsense policymaking that serves the interests of American workers, families, and businesses. Since its inception, the Endangerment Finding has been weaponized against projects and goods that deliver affordable, reliable energy to the American people. It has affected investment and infrastructure decisions in ways that have harmed U.S. competitiveness, purely to advance a political ideology. 

“The EPA’s continued attempt over the last decade and a half to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act represented a sweeping expansion of authority never granted by Congress and stretched the law far beyond its original purpose. Its basis rested heavily on speculative projections rather than direct, immediate harms, and the policy was not supported by clear scientific data or a sound legal basis. The result has been an endless string of confusing and conflicting mandates for families, companies, and manufacturers, complicating life for all Americans.  

“Major policy decisions of this scale have no place in the hands of unelected government agents. Rescinding the rule is an opportunity to reset policy, respect congressional intent, and ensure that any future framework is debated and decided by the people’s actual elected representatives. The decision to expand the scope of the Clean Air Act or any other statute rests with Congress and Congress alone. We are confident that the Supreme Court will affirm this should they be in a position to consider the merits of this sound rulemaking.”

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: , , , , , ,

President Trump Liberates America From Obama-Era “Endangerment Finding”

February 12, 2026 by Leave a Comment

President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to rescind an Obama-era ruling that currently serves as the legal basis for federal greenhouse-gas regulation. The 2009 “endangerment finding” determined that six greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. Despite Obama’s EPA indicating the rule was based on science, there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or a danger to human health. Criteria pollutants (e.g., lead, sulfur dioxide, PM2.5) are a danger to public health, which was the reason for the passage of the Clean Air Act and their containment. Representative John Dingell, a co-author of the Clean Air Act, confirmed that carbon dioxide was not meant to be regulated under the act.

The finding, however, provided the legal underpinning for the EPA’s climate rules, which limited carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and tightened fuel-economy standards for vehicles under the Clean Air Act. It was used during the Obama and Biden administrations to heavily regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and large industrial facilities. Despite these Democratic administrations claiming that they are for helping the poor, the “endangerment finding” is a regressive tax that hits poor households the hardest.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the final rule that the Trump EPA is preparing will remove the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal greenhouse-gas emission standards for motor vehicles. It also repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions, and reporting obligations for industries. It is not expected to apply to rules governing emissions from power plants and other stationary sources such as oil-and-gas facilities, but repealing the finding could eventually roll back regulations that affect those facilities. The Trump EPA claims that the rollback of the “endangerment finding” would result in more than $1 trillion in regulation cuts and an average per-vehicle cost savings of more than $2,400.

It is expected that environmental groups will challenge the rescission in the court system and it will likely take years before the litigation is resolved. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration could decline to enforce rules and fines during the legal process. Several unsuccessful attempts to revise or repeal the “endangerment finding” have previously been undertaken.

Additionally, the Journal reports that President Trump will release a new executive order that directs the Defense Department to enter into agreements to buy electricity from coal-fired power plants. The administration will also provide funding to five coal plants in West Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and Kentucky to recommission and upgrade the facilities. According to Energy Secretary Wright, revitalizing the U.S. coal industry would provide energy for artificial intelligence and re-industrialization and help contain the rise in electricity prices. The Tennessee Valley Authority is also expected to keep two coal plants operating after they were previously slated to shut down.

Some states, including Massachusetts, New York, and California, are opposed to the proposed rescission of the “endangerment finding,” arguing it would violate current law, Supreme Court precedent, and, allegedly, scientific consensus. These states could enact legislation themselves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of a federal standard for regulating them. If this were the case, blue states would again be increasing energy prices for their residents, as they are already doing with electricity prices and gasoline prices. This would increase the costs of goods and services in these states, in turn making life less affordable.

Background

According to MLive, the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970 with a focus on criteria pollutants (e.g., sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide) to address industrial and vehicle-specific emissions from these pollutants. Congress did not view the common compounds in the atmosphere — nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide — as air pollutants. When the first major amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted in 1977, Congress chose not to pursue climate change under the act.

The EPA was given the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, in which the court found that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants. Massachusetts and several other states had petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, indicating that they cause climate change and are harmful to the public’s health.

Analysis

Under the Obama and Biden administrations, EPA regulations sanctioned by the Endangerment Finding had little to no effect on the global environment, while causing hardships for Americans by limiting technological choice and raising domestic energy prices. U.S. regulatory policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions result in manufacturers and energy producers moving offshore, resulting in those emissions moving elsewhere, and often to countries with less efficient technology. As we explain in the 2026 Environmental Quality Index, “Given its high standards and significant output, U.S. energy production supports both economic growth and environmental quality more effectively than that of other countries.” Therefore, politicians should be encouraging more domestic energy production if they want to lower emissions, not stymie it.

For a more detailed review of what this reform means for policy makers see this brief prepared by AEA’s Kenny Stein on behalf of the Institute for Energy Research.

EPA Revokes Endangerment Finding: What You Need to Know

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

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

AEA Surveys

February 11, 2026 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance has conducted and sponsored a number of surveys in recent years to reveal public sentiment on key energy issues.

Survey Title and LinkRelease Date
New Survey, Same Results: Americans Reject Carbon Dioxide TaxesJanuary 2024
New Survey, Same Results: Voters Prefer Affordable Energy over Climate AgendaJune 2023
Voters Don’t Want to Pay for Biden’s Global Warming AgendaApril 2021
American Voters Concerned about Economy, Not ClimateMay 2020
Voters to Congress: Make a U-Turn on Special Vehicle PreferencesOctober 2019
New Survey Results Find Voters (Still) Don’t Favor EV Subsidies May 2019
New Survey Finds Voters Skeptical of Government Action on Climate Change March 2019
New Survey: Voters (Still) Find Vehicle Subsidies “Unfair”June 2018
IER-ACU Foundation Energy & Environment SurveyOctober 2017
Survey: Americans Don’t Want to Pay for Neighbor’s EVSeptember 2015
Americans Skeptical of Federal Energy DictatesSeptember 2014
IER Survey Finds Broad-Based Opposition to Carbon TaxJune 2013
IER Survey: Government Transparency Demanded By TaxpayersMay 2013
Carbon Tax SurveyDecember 2012
IER National SurveySeptember 2008

If you are looking for a specific survey sponsored by AEA and don’t see it on this list contact AEA’s press office ([email protected]) for assistance.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

Behind The Green Facade, Coal Powers China

February 10, 2026 by Leave a Comment

The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024. Oil was at 20% and natural gas at 10%. That means that 88% of China’s energy came from fossil fuels. Carbon-free energy (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and most other renewables) only provided 12%. Since 2000, China has more than tripled its coal consumption and now uses more coal than the rest of the world’s combined usage, burning 56% of the world’s coal. As Doomberg points out, China consumes almost 20 times the combined consumption of coal by the 27 member states of the European Union, based on 2024 data.

Source: Doomberg

In 2024, China released 11,173 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — 31.5% of the world’s total. That was about 4.5 times as much as the European Union and almost 2.5 times the amount that the United States released.

Source: Doomberg

News reports are touting that renewable energy, including hydroelectricity, has overtaken coal as the primary source of electricity around the world, indicating a shift in the global reliance on fossil fuels based on data for the first half of 2025. That shift is not surprising, since 2024 data shows that once renewable data is supplemented by hydro data, coal and renewables plus hydro had generation shares that were very close. In 2024, coal produced 33.95% of the world’s electricity, while renewables plus hydro produced 31.6%. Thus, coal outproduced renewables plus hydro by slightly more than two percentage points.

In the first half of 2025, Ember found that renewable energy plus hydroelectricity contributed 34.3% of all global electricity generated, while coal generated 33.1%. Ember claims that populous developing countries like China and India “led the charge in adding more renewable energies,” according to an NPR report. But, in 2024, China produced 57.8% of its electricity from coal and 33.7% from renewables and hydropower. It is unlikely that China has since switched those numbers so radically when it expanded the capacity of coal-fired plants more in the first half of 2025 than at any time in the past nine years, according to DW. It did so by adding between 80 and 100 gigawatts of new coal power to its grid in 2025, with 21 gigawatts of those gigawatts added in the first half of 2025.

Similarly, in 2024, India produced 74.8% of its electricity from coal and just 19.6% from renewables plus hydroelectricity. India added 221,813 megawatts of coal as of March 2025. While both countries added more renewable capacity than coal, the efficiency of wind and solar power at a quarter or a third of that of coal, meaning their contribution would not make a radical change in terms of the fuel driving the economies of China or India. Capacity factors for wind and solar are much lower than those of other sources.

One reason that China has added renewable generating technologies is to manufacture and sell them to countries that have goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are instituting policies to enforce those goals. Europe, in particular, is touting the growing share of generation they are getting from renewable energy. This is occurring while their electricity costs are skyrocketing and their industry is moving overseas because European industries can no longer compete with countries with much lower energy costs. Wind and solar power are not the cheap power sources that many have hyped because they add to system costs, including increased transmission costs and duplicate generating capacity from the need to provide back-up power when the wind is not blowing, and the sun is not shining. Back-up power is supplied by very expensive batteries or coal and natural gas generating units that are forced to play second fiddle by only generating power when wind and solar power cannot perform, meaning that the fossil technologies cannot recover their full costs due to less generating time. Building duplicate systems because of renewable energy’s inherent intermittency is expensive, while consuming more resources and making the system less efficient.

Analysis

Despite the growing prominence of renewable energy generation, which is mostly buttressed by hydropower — a more reliable source than wind and solar — coal still remains the dominant source of electricity for China and India. Even if these countries continue to increase renewable generation, it’s unlikely that they’ll move off coal anytime soon. The reason that China and India will not divest themselves of coal is that they need affordable and reliable power for their industries and for their residents. With the advent of artificial intelligence data centers that are energy hungry, China will be relying on its vast coal-fired grid — larger than all the generating capacity in the United States — to lead the race. It also needs coal capacity to process the rare earth and other critical minerals that the world needs for “green” technologies. It currently dominates the world in their supply and processing, having spent decades to gain that edge.

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

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

Europe’s EV Mania Reveals Dangers Of Auto-Market Manipulation

February 10, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) overtook those of gasoline-powered vehicles in the European Union in December 2025 for the first time, with “hybrid” vehicles outselling both. The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association found that registrations of battery electric vehicles reached 217,898, up 51% year-on-year from December 2024, with a market share of 22.6%. Sales of gasoline-powered cars in the EU fell 19% year-on-year, from 267,834 in December 2024 to 216,492 in December 2025, with a market share of 22.5%. Hybrids had the largest share of sales at 44% in December. The figures exclude hybrid vehicles that run on gasoline with regenerative braking and plug-in hybrid vehicles that also have battery power. Despite the good showing in December, for the 2025 calendar year, EV sales in the EU were 17.4% of the market, up from 13.6% in 2024. Registrations of gasoline-powered cars fell by 18.7% in 2025, with all major markets in the EU seeing a decrease. Total EU car sales rose 5.8% to almost one million vehicles in December, and by 1.8% to 10.8 million for the year.

Source: Carbon Brief

As Carbon Brief reports, in 2025, four countries accounted for 62% (1,880,370) of the EV registrations: Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Registrations of gasoline-powered cars in 2025 totaled 2,880,298 in the EU. France accounted for the steepest decline in gasoline-powered vehicle registrations at 32%, followed by Germany (-21.6%), Italy (-18.2%), and Spain (-16%).

Hybrid vehicles fueled by gasoline or diesel with regenerative braking are the largest segment of the EU car market, with sales rising 5.8% from 307,001 in December 2024 to 324,799 in 2025. Battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids grew faster, with sales up 51% and 36.7% in December 2025, respectively.

Source: Carbon Brief

According to Carbon Brief, the EU’s new climate proposal for autos requires a 90% cut in tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions from 2021 levels by 2035. Previously, the EU planned on banning the sale of gas cars starting in 2035. The new proposal requires that the remaining 10% of emissions be compensated through the use of low-carbon steel made in the EU or from e-fuels and biofuels. According to European automakers, the EU’s rigid car and van emission targets for 2030 and 2035 were no longer feasible as Europe’s top automakers face a global market challenged by Chinese EV imports and American trade barriers. Despite the slightly relaxed policy proposed, auto manufacturers had already geared up for the more stringent rules, which may have affected overall EV sales in the EU, particularly in December.

Tesla Leads EV Market Sales

According to The News Wheel, among Europe’s best-selling electric vehicles in 2025, the Tesla Model Y held the top position with registrations at 151,331 units, despite a 28% drop in sales. The Skoda Elroq, made by the Czech automaker Skoda, came in second with 94,106 sales, followed by Tesla’s Model 3 with 86,261 units. Also in the top five were the Renault 5 E-Tech and the Volkswagen ID.4, with 81,517 and 80,123 sales, respectively. Volkswagen had three models in the top seven: ID.4, ID.3 (78,667 units), and ID.7 (76,368 units). BMW and Kia also had models in the top ten, with the iX1 and EV3, while the Skoda Enyaq closed the list at 65,787 units sold.

Worldwide EV Growth

Electric vehicle demand grew across almost every region in 2025, except North America, where sales were down 4%. Global EV sales rose 20% to 20.7 million units, with China accounting for 12.9 million units, a 17% increase. China has minimal oil resources and provides lucrative subsidies for EVs.

EV sales were up only 1% in the United States, affected by the elimination of federal tax credits as of September 30, 2025, changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that dropped fines to zero, and the introduction of policies to onshore vehicle production and supply chains. EV sales in Canada fell by 41% due to the removal of subsidies early in 2025. In contrast, EV sales in Mexico grew by 29%, with the majority of this growth driven by imports of electric vehicles from China. To protect its auto industry and at the urging of President Trump, Mexico upped its tariff on Chinese vehicles to 50%.

Analysis

In contrast with the U.S., Europe is moving full steam ahead with the transition to EVs, backed by stringent emissions standards. As we’ve written previously, “Subsidies have played a significant role in increasing the prominence of EVs globally, and data indicate that EVs become less popular when subsidies are removed. To ensure consumers have access to the cars that best suit their needs, governments should step out of the way by cutting subsidies and regulations promoting certain vehicle types over others, allowing price signals to guide market decisions.”

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

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

The Unregulated Podcast #262: Alternative Worlds

February 9, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the diverging worldview between climate catastrophists, including the latest class of carbon tax advocates, and people living in the real world.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , ,

Governor Sherrill Can’t Mandate Her Way To Lower Electricity Prices

February 5, 2026 by Leave a Comment

New Jersey’s governor, Mikie Sherrill, declared a formal emergency over rising electric bills and ordered regulators to intervene in rate hikes, using the Disaster Control Act. Sherrill directed regulators to stop electric rate increases, effectively freezing rate hikes that were to go into effect in the coming months. She also warned that, without structural changes, nuclear power and other long‑term investments into renewable energy and battery storage will be needed to stabilize prices. As reported by Morning Overview, her directive orders the state Board of Public Utilities to create “Residential Universal Bill Credits” that would appear directly on household statements to offset rising charges. Her Executive Order No. 1 program is tasked with subsidizing residential customers while her administration works on deeper reforms, meaning the bill credits are intended to be a bridge to a longer-term policy. Former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy took similar action last year, but that did not fix the rising electricity price problem.

New Jersey has the 12th-highest residential electricity prices in the country at 22.55 cents per kilowatt hour as of October 2025, 25% higher than the national average at 17.98 cents per kilowatt hour. Currently, natural gas and nuclear generate the bulk of the state’s electricity, with nuclear producing 45% and natural gas 49%; renewables are at 4%. While traditional baseload technologies are providing 94% of the state’s electricity, the policies of New Jersey Governor Murphy over the past eight years and now Governor Sherrill are making electricity prices rise.

Source: NJ.com

New Jersey is a founding member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap and tax program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in electricity generation by forcing utility generators to buy allowances for the carbon dioxide emissions they release over a predetermined amount set by its ten regional members. The cost of the allowances is added to the electricity bills that consumers pay. Pennsylvania recently withdrew from the pact while Virginia rejoined under new Governor Spanberger.

New Jersey also has a renewable portfolio standard that requires it to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 — a bill signed by Governor Phil Murphy in 2018. In promoting renewable energy, he advocated for offshore wind facilities — a very expensive generating technology since it requires developers to mount the wind turbines in rough ocean waters, run extensive cables underground to bring the power to the coast, and maintain the turbines in turbulent ocean waters, which makes their operating and maintenance costs almost five times that of onshore wind. Besides its direct costs, it requires back-up power via a dispatchable technology such as natural gas, nuclear, or coal,when the wind is not blowing, which adds to the cost consumers pay. On top of that, New Jersey has less spare dispatchable capacity as it shut down its last coal plant in 2022, under the policies of Governor Murphy. It is unfortunate that Governor Sherrill is planning on using those same policies.

During Winter Storm Fern, coal was used by many states to keep the lights on and residents warm. In the week ending January 25, 2026, coal-fired electricity generation in the Lower 48 states increased 31% from the previous week, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Coal accounted for 21% of all electricity generation in the Lower 48 states over that period, up from 17% the previous week. It was the second-largest source of energy used for electricity, following natural gas, which contributed 38%, and nuclear, which was third at 18%.

However, New Jersey no longer has that option after it shuttered five coal-fired power plants and one nuclear plant since 2017 under Governor Murphy’s term in office — a combined loss of more than 2,500 megawatts of firm generating capacity. That left the state grappling with dwindling in-state generation capacity and increasing reliance on imported electricity. Governor Phil Murphy thought he could deliver “reliable and affordable green energy alternatives,” which, frankly, do not exist. New Jersey’s hopes for a transition to “green” energy outpaced its replacement infrastructure, raising concerns about grid stability, cost volatility, and energy independence.

As the Shore News Network explains, with no new large-scale generating stations coming online to replace the decommissioned plants, New Jersey turned increasingly to electricity imports from neighboring states, such as Pennsylvania, which resulted in a strain on regional transmission systems and greater exposure to external market forces. The state was warned that the result could be higher utility bills, grid reliability concerns, and a lag in meeting renewable energy targets — all of which have occurred.

NJ.com reports that officials from the PJM interconnection indicated that, while demand has been increasing, New Jersey’s existing supply has left the system due primarily to state policy and federal rules from previous administrations. According to PJM, “The bottom line…is that these affordability concerns are being driven by an imbalance in electricity supply and demand. PJM wholesale power markets are sending a price signal that reflects this imbalance, which is caused by electricity supply not being constructed at a pace to keep up with increases in electricity demand, mainly driven by data center buildout. This issue is acutely problematic in New Jersey because it imports about 40% of its power from out of state.”

Governor Sherrill blames PJM’s capacity market on rising prices because capacity prices in auction markets run by PJM soared over 800% in 2024, according to her executive order. She ignores that the policies of the state to remove firm capacity are causing the problem of rising electricity prices for her state and higher prices for PJM’s capacity auction as well. And while neighboring Pennsylvania withdrew from RGGI, New Jersey remained, adding costs to electricity bills.

Analysis

Under Governor Sherrill’s policies, people and businesses in New Jersey should expect higher prices. Taxing carbon dioxide emissions through RGGI and forcing “green” energy sources onto the grid through a Renewable Portfolio Standard and subsidized offshore wind lead to higher energy prices by directing investment away from energy sources that are cheap and reliable. As IER’s Alex Stevens explains for the New York Post, “Prices are the sharpest signal that markets send, and it’s really the only way that so many people engaging in an economy can coordinate supply and demand. If you impose price controls or ceilings, you basically blind everybody from the information about where supply needs to increase.”

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

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

Whose Policies Are Increasing Electricity Rates? 

February 2, 2026 by Leave a Comment

E&E News reported recently that Senate Democrats gathered to “reinforce a core midterm message: Republican policies have driven up energy prices for Americans.” Before Democrats cast blame for electricity prices, they need to look in the mirror.  

The Map That Tells the Story

Recently, along with Always On Energy Research, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) released a report called “Blue States, High Rates” that tells the real story of the electricity prices in the United States:  

What’s striking about the map is that if you didn’t know what you were looking at, you might assume it was a map of how states voted in the 2024 presidential election. It’s not—it’s a map of electricity prices.

The correlation is unmistakable: The vast majority of states with electricity prices above the national average voted for the Democratic nominee in both 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile, 8 of the ten states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red.

But here’s what Democratic Senators need to understand: this isn’t a map of politics. It’s a map of policy consequences. The correlation exists not because of how people vote, but because of what elected officials do once in office. And Democrats in office consistently enact policies that intentionally increase the price of electricity.  

The Numbers Don’t Lie

From 2014 to 2024, electricity rates in blue states increased by 32.4%. In red states, they increased by 18.5%. That’s a difference of nearly 14 percentage points. 

The pattern holds across multiple policy categories:

  • States with mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards saw rates increase 28.8%, compared to just 17.0% in states without such mandates—a difference of nearly 12 percentage points.
  • States with 100% net-zero targets experienced rate increases of 31.2%, versus 20.9% in states without such targets.
  • RGGI member states saw rates climb 33.8%, compared to 21.3% in non-RGGI states.

Democrats’ Real Priorities

These price increases are not coincidences. Democrats have policy priorities other than electricity affordability. They want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They want to promote renewable energy. They want to electrify transportation and buildings.

People can debate the validity of these policy goals, but what’s not debatable is that these policies raise electricity costs. That’s not a bug—it’s a feature. Carbon pricing,  carbon dioxide taxes, renewable mandates, and renewable energy standards are designed to make conventional electricity more expensive relative to preferred alternatives.

The problem for Democrats is that they want credit for caring about affordability while implementing policies that do the exact opposite.

Consider Governor Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, who announced shortly after taking office that she wanted the commonwealth to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The entire purpose of RGGI is to tax carbon dioxide emissions, which means intentionally increasing the cost of electricity from natural gas and coal generation. RGGI states have seen electricity prices rise 12.5 percentage points faster than non-RGGI states.

If your central goal is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that’s a defensible policy. But you cannot simultaneously claim that electricity affordability is your priority.

The “Cheap Clean Power” Fantasy

Politico, writing about the same meeting of Senate Democrats, notes that Senator Schatz (D-Hawaii) “called for advocating for cheap clean power that allows Democrats to ‘keep it extremely simple as it relates to the affordability question.’” The problem is when Democrats try to require “cheap clean power” the power turns out to be anything but cheap. 

California, which wants to lead the nation in renewable energy deployment, has electricity rates that are double the national average. Rates increased 78% from 2014 to 2024, the highest increase in the country.

Massachusetts, with its aggressive clean energy mandates, saw rates climb 56%. Maine, another RGGI state with aggressive renewable policies, experienced a 55% increase.

Meanwhile, states that prioritized affordability over climate mandates tell a different story. Texas, with its market-oriented approach, saw rates increase just 9.5%. Louisiana, relying heavily on natural gas without aggressive mandates, saw increases of less than 9%. North Dakota actually saw rates decline by nearly 6%.

What Republicans Have Achieved

Ranking Member Heinrich suggested Democrats should message around “how the Trump administration’s policies are impacting electric bills.” But the data shows that Republican-led states have consistently delivered better affordability outcomes.

This isn’t complicated. States that have:

  • Avoided mandatory renewable portfolio standards
  • Rejected carbon pricing schemes like RGGI
  • Allowed utilities to use the most cost-effective generation sources
  • Maintained diverse fuel portfolios, including natural gas and coal

…have delivered lower electricity prices and smaller rate increases than states that pursued aggressive climate policies.

Florida, under continuous Republican governance since 1999, only saw prices rise prices 16% from 2014 to 2024, less than the average increase of 24.5%, despite near-universal air conditioning demand and the challenges of mitigating frequent hurricane damage. Kentucky has the lowest rates of any state east of the Mississippi. Louisiana enjoys the third-lowest rates in the nation.

The Real Choice

At the meeting of Senate Democrats reported on by E&E News and Politico, Senator Schatz stated he wants to start discussions around “what-would-we-do-if-we-were-in-charge” policies. State governments play a significant role in electricity policy, and we already know what Democrats do when they’re in charge. We can see it in California, New York, Massachusetts, and many other blue states, where electricity has become dramatically more expensive.

If Democrats truly want to “keep it extremely simple as it relates to the affordability question,” the answer is straightforward: stop implementing policies that intentionally increase the price of electricity.

You cannot have carbon dioxide taxes, mandatory renewable standards, 100% renewable energy targets, and aggressive restrictions on natural gas and coal while also claiming to prioritize affordability. The data from 50 states and a decade of policy decisions and price changes make this abundantly clear.

Americans struggling with their electric bills don’t need new messaging strategies. They need state and federal leaders willing to prioritize affordability over ideological mandates. Until Democrats are willing to do that, the map of electricity prices will continue to look like a map of election results—and for good reason.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Coalition to Secretary Wright: Senate Carbon Tax Crowd Wants You to Help Them Implement New Energy Taxes

February 2, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (2/2/26) – Today, a coalition of 37 organizations, led by the American Energy Alliance and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, sent a letter to Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, alerting him to language surreptitiously included in a report attached to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, which requests that the Department lay the groundwork for a national energy tax. 

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“Behind closed doors, and without any transparency, a small group of Republican House and Senate members used a legislative sleight of hand to set the wheels in motion for a carbon dioxide tax on American families. Though the language is not enshrined in law, the proponents, including Senators Kevin Cramer and Bill Cassidy, have already indicated that they will use the report language to try to force the Trump administration to build a case for eventually establishing the tax.

“Today, we joined with 37 like-minded organizations to alert Secretary Wright to this agenda. The Trump administration has been very vocal and consistent in its prioritization of American energy security and affordability; the language that these Senators slipped into the committee report only hinders that agenda. The simple fact is that an energy tax based on carbon dioxide will be regressive and harm American families, businesses, workers, the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and first responders.

“No logical-thinking person can be in favor of such a thing.  

“Some in Washington seem eager to quietly set the stage for a carbon dioxide tax without ever having to take accountability by casting their vote to raise energy prices on their constituents. That’s unfortunate, but not surprising. The Secretary should know he has a stable of supporters ready to push back against this backdoor provision and develop a proper response.”

Background:

The recently enacted minibus appropriations package includes report language reflecting elements of the PROVE IT Act. The PROVE IT Act was originally a standalone bill in the 118th Congress that stalled due to conservative opposition as AEA, with several other organizations, argued it would lay the groundwork for carbon taxes or border adjustments. 

Specifically, the report language instructs the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to conduct a study comparing U.S. emissions intensity for certain goods to those from other countries, specifically mirroring items covered by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. While presented as a mere study, this lays critical groundwork for a potential U.S. carbon tax. 

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 #261: Welcome to Veganuary

February 2, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the impacts of the recent winter storm on America’s electric grid, the future of renewables and electric vehicles, and the latest updates from the Trump Administration.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , ,
Next