Last night’s election results sent a clear message to our elected officials – the American people want a return to economic growth driven by the affordable and reliable energy that powers every sector of our economy. In a clean sweep across the country, Americans affirmed their support for President Trump’s commitment to reversing the harmful regulations and subsidy programs that have stifled American energy production and served as obstacles to economic opportunity.
In the 2024 elections, energy policy was very much on the ballot. Throughout their campaign, the Biden-Harris administration proudly touted its aggressive energy and environmental policies as among its leading accomplishments. At the presidential and congressional levels, energy policy served as key messaging in speeches and debates. While it may sometimes be difficult to tell the two parties apart, there is a distinct divide in philosophy and priorities when it comes to energy policy. Because of the change of control in the White House and Senate, there will be a significant alteration in the direction of energy policy in the United States over the next four years.
President Trump Wins
President-elect Donald Trump won resoundingly. Despite expectations that results might take days, or even weeks, his victory was easily confirmed by early this morning. Though the final popular vote count will not be known for some time, it looks increasingly like he will take that as well. As we have seen before, a Trump administration will have a massive impact on energy and environmental policy. The Biden administration has been the most left-wing administration in history regarding energy policy. The Harris campaign quickly and rhetorically moved to the middle on many energy issues (for example, reversing her support of a ban on hydraulic fracturing and on the Green New Deal), but in reality, a Harris administration would probably have continued down the same destructive path.
Trump’s victory provides an opportunity to reverse much of the Biden administration’s executive overreach. Regulations such as those effectively mandating electric vehicles, suppressing oil and gas development on federal lands, and trying to close reliable coal and natural gas electricity generation will all be subject to review and reversal. Policy actions like participating in the Paris Agreement international climate change accord, favoring wind and solar developers, or handing out subsidies for so-called environmental justice groups should also be reversed. Because the Biden administration has gone so far with executive action without the input of Congress, there is a large body of policy change that the Trump administration will be able to modify or reverse in short order.
Senate
In the Senate, as of this writing, Republicans have added three seats (Ohio, West Virginia, and Montana) for a total of 52, with four more races still uncalled. With 52 seats, Republicans will take back control of the chamber in the 119th Congress, but the outcomes of the remaining seats are important for energy policy in particular. Right now, the Senate majority rests on moderates like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator-elect John Curtis (R-UT), neither of whom is a reliable vote for good energy policy. Adding one or two more senators from the remaining races could thus make a significant difference for the chamber’s energy and environmental policy outcomes.
In the new Senate, the two central energy policy committees will likely be led by strong energy advocates Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) chairing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) chairing the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senate Commerce Committee, which also has some energy-related jurisdiction, will likely be chaired by another strong energy advocate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). These new leaders will make a difference in the kinds of hearings that are held and the formation of energy legislation, as well as approving nominees for the incoming Trump administration.
Speaking of nominees, this will be another area where the margin of Republican control will make a large difference. With 52 votes, nominees are potentially held hostage to several unreliable senators. A few more seats would ensure that the Trump administration would be able to confirm the strongest energy policy nominees.
House of Representatives
Control of the House of Representatives remains outstanding, with numerous races too close to call. Even if Republicans retain control of the chamber, it will only be by a couple of seats. This narrow majority naturally limits the scope of legislative possibilities. Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapprovals of Biden administration regulations, while requiring a majority, will be more difficult because only a handful of votes will decide the outcome. Thus, the only CRA votes we can probably expect to pass are repeals of the most egregious administration overreach. The narrow majority similarly would limit the content of any potential reconciliation legislation packages, or any other legislation. Democrats used reconciliation (which allows the passage of spending legislation with simple majorities in both chambers) to force through a large percentage of their Green New Deal spending priorities. Limiting or repealing those distortions and subsidies will be more challenging, though not impossible, with a tiny majority.
Control of the chamber does matter, though, in selecting committee chairs. As those in the majority chair committees, they control what hearings are held and what investigations and oversight happen. The outcome of control does matter, even if significant legislation movement is unlikely in the next two years.
Ballot Measures
In addition to these races, two ballot measures are worth noting. In Berkeley, California, Measure GG sought to impose a special tax on all buildings 15,000 square feet or larger that use natural gas. The tax rate would rise 6% above inflation each year and expire in 2050. The ballot measure would have effectively phased out natural gas in the city; however, 68.7% of voters opposed it, defeating it.
In Washington State, Measure 2066 was on the ballot. This measure would repeal parts of the Washington Decarbonization Act that deter the use of natural gas and require local governments and utilities to provide natural gas to eligible customers. It appears to be on track to pass, as 51.2% of voters have voted in favor of it, with 62% of the vote total reported.
In recent years, natural gas bans have been a flashpoint in energy policy, highlighting the gap between the policy preferences of individuals working in the administrative state and the public. These ballot initiatives demonstrate what happens when the public has an opportunity to weigh in on natural gas bans. In each instance, voters rejected the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are more capable than individuals of determining what sort of fuel sources best suit their needs.
Conclusion
This election reflects the American people’s recognition of the vital role affordable energy plays in every aspect of our lives. As demand for energy and electricity continues to grow, it’s essential to establish a policy framework that allows energy producers to meet this need. We are eager to work with President Trump to unlock America’s full energy potential, safeguard Americans’ right to choose the vehicles that best suit their needs, and prioritize American energy, jobs, and families.