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

Ditching Maduro Will Help Keep America’s Backyard Free of Adversaries

January 20, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Fueling The Conversation, Week of January 19th, 2026

Early in the morning of January 3, the U.S. carried out an operation to capture the self-proclaimed president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, to face trial in New York on charges of trafficking cocaine and partnering with cartels.

Removing Maduro from power was long overdue. More than 50 countries do not recognize him as the legitimately elected president of Venezuela. Under his leadership, the Venezuelan state carried out numerous human rights abuses, suppressed political opposition, and destroyed the economy. Decades of socialism under Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, caused the once prosperous country to reach a 75% extreme poverty level among its citizens. Maduro oversaw a GDP decrease of three-quarters from 2014 to 2021 due to an oil price decline of 44% between June and December 2014, highlighting the extent to which Venezuela’s state-run economy was buffered by high oil prices during Chavez’s rule.

Although the situation is still evolving, President Trump has firmly defended the legitimacy of the mission on national security and justice grounds. A Maduro-run Venezuela became a threat to the American people, and President Trump has shown that he will not let our adversaries walk all over us, especially in the Americas. With the U.S. firmly overseeing the flow of oil from the country, the Trump administration announced that “all proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in U.S. controlled accounts at globally recognized banks” and that the “only oil transported in and out of Venezuela will be through legitimate and authorized channels consistent with U.S. law and national security.” Even if the administration continues to permit oil sales to China, increased American control gives the U.S. a new card to play.

Venezuela has housed intelligence agents from China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran, while also being a hub for oil exports to China and Cuba, providing both countries with the discounted fuel they need to repress their people and, in Cuba’s case, float its economy. Notably, capturing Maduro involved the U.S. military facing off against Cuban soldiers and Chinese weapons, which failed to kill any American service members.

Besides the legal claims against Maduro personally, he led a regime that profited from the stolen assets of American companies. Although Venezuela has always had massive oil reserves, particularly in the Orinoco Belt and Maracaibo Basin, the country had no access to these resources until American oil companies invested in the expertise, infrastructure, and technology to get them out of the ground. An administrative board of Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA, admits this point, claiming that “U.S. companies such as Standard Oil (later Exxon) and Gulf Oil were pioneers in the investment and development of the Venezuelan oil industry.”

Instead of thanking these companies for contributing to a growing economy, which reached nearly 80% of U.S. GDP per capita in the late 1950s, Venezuela moved to punish them by demanding that they provide the state with a stake in ownership. In 1976, PDVSA was created to take over the industry, with the state requiring foreign oil companies to give it 60% equity in joint ventures. In 2007, Chavez reinforced this previous decree by nationalizing the last remaining oil sites that were majority controlled by foreign companies in the Orinoco Belt, declaring that “the privatization of oil is over in Venezuela.” Currently, Chevron is the only American company still operating in the country, owning stakes between 25% and 60% in five onshore and offshore projects, according to Reuters. ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, which left the country under Chavez, have been looking to recover $12 billion and $1.65 billion, respectively, of seized assets, which President Trump has made contingent on new investments in Venezuela by these companies.

President Trump’s recognition that the nationalization of American assets constitutes theft reverses decades of weakness by previous administrations and provides a new level of deterrence that should make foreign governments think twice before deciding to put American property under state control. Effectively resolving these disputes should help make Venezuela a more hospitable place to drill for oil.

Even though Venezuela has some easy to access medium and light oil reserves in the Maracaibo and Monagas Basins, it would be a mistake to overstate the effect an open Venezuela will have on the American energy sector. Questions still remain regarding whether the political and economic institutions within Venezuela can facilitate the development and trade of oil without significant disruptions, especially as the current Venezuelan regime continues to exist under the leadership of Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez. Furthermore, the investment required to achieve Venezuela’s previous peak production of 3.7 million barrels per day could reach $183 billion, a staggering amount in a time of low crude oil prices.

Despite these concerns, the liberation of Venezuela from Maduro’s grasp is a big win for the Venezuelan people and our national security. With ample pressure and encouragement from the Trump administration, Venezuela could reach new heights as a free and prosperous country. ¡Viva Venezuela Libre!

__________________

Fueling the Conversation, a weekly column by AEA President Tom Pyle, offers a principled take on energy events. Energy underpins all aspects of modern life, so policies that artificially limit production hurt everyday people paying to heat their homes and drive to work. “Green” groups push these policies for ideological reasons, but this column uses economic logic and hard facts to advocate for energy freedom.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Key Vote YES on H.R. 2988

January 15, 2026 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act.

For many years activists and advisory firms have encouraged and sometimes threatened fiduciaries responsible for managing and investing Americans’ retirement savings to engage in so-called ESG investing. This type of investing involves elevating subjective political priorities rather than focusing on economic returns. Most average Americans did not even know that their investment funds and voting rights were being leveraged to pursue political goals. The Biden administration even passed regulations which encouraged playing these political games with people’s retirement savings.

While the rage for ESG has faded in more recent years because of inflation and the obvious market underperformance of ESG-driven investing, the destructive ideology remains a threat to Americans’ retirement savings. This legislation would make clear that the responsibility of retirement fiduciaries is economic returns for their clients, not pursuing the political goals of activists. This will protect from future attempts to hijack the retirements savings of average Americans.

A YES vote on H.R. 2988 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote  it in its American Energy Scorecard.

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

The Unregulated Podcast #259: Do You Believe in Miracles?

January 15, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna cover the messaging crisis surrounding the affordability crisis, recent events in global oil markets, and later are joined by Representative Peter Stauber, the current Representative for Minnesota’s 8th congressional district for a discussion on his recently introduced resolution to overturn the Biden administration’s mining ban in Northern Minnesota.

Links:

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

Venezeula’s Oil and the Monroe Doctrine

January 14, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On January 2nd, at 10:46 pm, the United States initiated Operation Absolute Resolve, leading to the capture of former President Maduro of Venezuela. Along with his wife, Maduro was extracted from Caracas and relocated to New York, where he has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. Leading up to the capture of President Maduro, the United States began enforcing sanctions on Venezuelan oil tankers by seizing ships such as the Skipper on December 21st, 2025, which was carrying two million barrels of oil to Matanzas, Cuba. Utilizing a shadow fleet of illegal vessels, Maduro’s regime had been supplying America’s adversaries with heavily discounted oil. These adversaries include China and Cuba, both of which boast atrocious records of human rights violations.

Venezuela boasts one of the largest oil reserves in the world, which should have yielded immense wealth for the country. Instead, as a result of decades of corruption and socialist policies that led to an extreme diaspora of people and their expertise, Venezuela’s oil contribution to the global economy declined significantly. The military action taken by the United States against Venezuela wasn’t solely about drugs or even oil. Although both are incredibly important variables, at the core of America’s removal of Maduro from power was countering the incursion of the growing geopolitical influence in America’s backyard of adversarial nations such as China and Russia; it was a reminder to those who would think otherwise that the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.

Venezuela’s Oil 

Venezuela boasts one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, approximately 303 billion barrels, accounting for 17% of the world’s total in 2024. Venezuela has, and continues to, rely heavily on oil revenue as its primary source of government funding, doing so without much economic diversification. This reliance accounts for 80% of all exports and 17% of GDP. Furthermore, Venezuela ships most of its oil to China, approximately 80%, while the rest is distributed to a variety of other countries, including Cuba and the United States.

Venezuela’s oil is mostly heavy crude, a dense, complex type that requires more specialized methods of extraction and refining. Given this and the current state of Venezuela’s economic and political institutions, the investment required for mass production will be costly and time-consuming; immediate large-scale oil production from the nation’s heavy crude is unlikely, but development is possible and currently under discussion. Furthermore, for years, Venezuela has allowed its oil infrastructure to decay, it has been terribly mismanaged, and in some instances, it has been stripped by desperate people seeking any means of survival. Additionally, like most other socialist regimes, Maduro ousted those with expertise, replacing them with political loyalists. The extensive brain drain that has taken place over decades will need to be addressed before any mass increase in production takes place. This will likely be in the form of American experts and Venezuelan refugees returning to formerly abandoned and decaying operations.

The primary beneficiaries of Venezuela’s oil were China and Cuba, both of whom will need to re-evaluate their supply chains, given the potential for Venezuela crude to be cut off. China receives roughly 4-5% of its seaborne supply from Venezuela, whereas Cuba is heavily dependent on Venezuelan crude, with it being upwards of 50% of Cuba’s crude oil imports. This inability to diversify its supply chain has placed Cuba in a detrimentally vulnerable position. Furthermore, by ousting Maduro, Caracas could potentially gain freedom from being a puppet of Beijing and Moscow. This, combined with future anticipated high production rates with a destination for America’s Gulf refineries, which are uniquely tailored to accept the heavy blend type of Venezuelan oil, will increase global supply, directly benefiting the Venezuelan economy. This situation will also decrease the amount of black market crude that has benefited belligerent nations and their proxy entities, such as China, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine Against China and Russia

Given that a significant portion of the strategy behind capturing Maduro was to counter the growing regional influence of China and Russia, precedent for Operation Absolute Resolve can be found in President James Monroe’s 1823 annual address to Congress. Part of his address contained what is known as the Monroe Doctrine, which, at its core, was a warning to European nations to stay out of the Western hemisphere and laid the foundation for the United States as the regional hegemon of the West. Today, it’s primarily China and Russia who have been working to expand their influence in the Western hemisphere and undermine America’s regional power. These nations have a particular interest in Venezuela for its geopolitical significance, given its geographic proximity to the United States, and its vast reserves of oil and other important resources, such as critical minerals.

During the operation, the United States demonstrated a tactical superiority that Russian and Chinese-based weapon systems were unable to match. The limited ground force of approximately twenty special operators was able to engage a far larger force while exposing the limitations of Russian and Chinese weaponry. Furthermore, Operation Absolute Resolve demonstrated the growing importance of electronic warfare, the ability to shut down an enemy’s electric grid, radar, and communications on a previously unseen scale; this also raises the importance of the United States further securing its own grid from similar attacks.

Conclusion

The capture of former Venezuelan President Maduro was a tactical success that has laid the foundation for cutting off China and Cuba from Venezuelan oil, while also limiting the growing regional influence that China, Russia, Iran, and other adversarial nations have enjoyed in the Western hemisphere. Opening Venezuela’s oil production to the global market will lower prices, and will lead to geopolitical ripples from China reassessing its supply chains, a strained Cuba, and even a threatened Canada due to the new future competition for American refineries. Operation Absolute Resolve was also a demonstration of American military might and a reinvigoration of the long-ignored Monroe Doctrine. A free Venezuela contributing its vast oil to the global market with the partnership of the United States is likely the first phase of a much larger grand strategy of geopolitics.

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

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

Trump Admin Takes Action To Save Ratepayers From Offshore Wind Boondoggles

January 9, 2026 by Leave a Comment

The Trump Interior Department ordered a halt to construction of all five offshore wind projects currently being built in the United States, pausing all leases for large-scale offshore wind projects that are currently under construction due to national security issues. The pauses affect the Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1 projects. According to Politico, the national security risks were identified by the Department of Defense in “recently completed classified reports.” An unclassified report from the Energy Department had found that wind facilities could interfere with radar systems. Wind projects can create risks because the movement of turbine blades, combined with their reflective towers, can create radar interference, called “clutter,” making it difficult to identify legitimate moving targets.

Via Politico, the department cited a 2024 report that stated that radar’s threshold for false alarm detection can be increased to reduce some clutter, but “an increased detection threshold” could cause radar to miss targets. Agencies are testing mitigation approaches to manage turbine-related radar clutter, including adjustments to existing radar processing systems. The pause will give the administration time to work with leaseholders and states to assess the possibility of mitigating the risks. Last year, Sweden banned offshore wind in the Baltic Sea, rejecting 13 applications due to national security concerns. The issue of wind turbines affecting military radar has been extant for decades, with the Sierra Club suing the Department of Defense as early as 2006 regarding incomplete studies for onshore wind operations.

The Empire Wind project off the coast of New York had previously been halted by the administration in April, and the Revolution Wind project was blocked in August. Both pauses were ultimately lifted — one after Trump struck a deal with New York for the construction of natural gas pipelines in the state and the other after a federal judge intervened. In another case, a federal court in Maryland denied a request by US Wind to block a potential review of its approved offshore wind project off the coast of Maryland. In a memorandum opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that US Wind had not met the legal threshold for a preliminary injunction.

According to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, “One natural gas pipeline supplies as much energy as these 5 projects combined,” and he indicated that the five paused projects were “expensive, unreliable, heavily subsidized.” As explained by the National Center for Energy Analytics, the subsidization is massive as the amount of federal tax expenditures allocated for renewables and end users in fiscal year 2025 alone surpassed the aggregate total for fossil fuels over the entire fiscal 1994–2025 period ($50.8 billion).”

Via the New York Times, on his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order halting all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind facilities. A federal judge this month struck down the halt on leasing mandated by the January order, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated federal law.

Status of the Halted Projects

Vineyard Wind 1, located about 15 miles south of the Massachusetts islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, is slated to include 62 wind turbines, each spaced by one nautical mile apart. About half of those turbines are operational.

Revolution Wind, a project located off the coast of Rhode Island, is 80% completed, according to its website. It is operated by Danish renewable energy company Orsted, which indicated that the delay would cost approximately $15 million per week. The project involves installing 65 large wind turbines, two offshore substations, interconnecting cables, and an export cable. Revolution Wind has invested roughly $5 billion in the project and expects to incur an additional $1 billion in breakaway costs if it were permanently halted.

Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is the largest offshore wind project in the United States, with 176 turbines. The project was projected to be up and running by the end of 2026, according to its website. According to a letter Dominion received, the pause would be for 90 days and could be extended.

Orsted’s Sunrise Wind, located about 30 miles from the coast of New York’s Long Island, was expected to be operating in 2027, according to its website.

Empire Wind, also located off Long Island, is under construction. The company constructing Empire Wind is Equinor, who indicated that the project is 60% complete and that dozens of vessels had been working on it. When work on Empire Wind was initially paused in April, Equinor said it was losing $50 million a week. Empire Wind 1 has a design capacity of 810 megawatts and is expected to begin commercial operation in 2027. The project renegotiated its contracts, settling for a fee of $150.15 per megawatt-hour, which is about three times the price of natural gas-fired generation.

Only a small wind facility off Rhode Island that began operating in 2016 to supply energy for Block Island, which was used to high electricity prices, was not affected by the ban.

Sweden Blocks Offshore Wind Due to National Security Issues

Sweden’s government has blocked the construction of 13 offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea and suspended another project off the island of Gotland after the military warned that the turbines could undermine national security. The Swedish Armed Forces said the large rotating blades and tower structures would interfere with radar systems, degrading the country’s ability to detect airborne threats such as cruise missiles. Several of the proposed projects were located near the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, one of Europe’s most heavily militarized regions, situated between Poland and Lithuania. Defense officials warned that the wind farms could sharply compress Sweden’s early-warning window in the event of an attack, cutting detection times from several minutes to as little as 60 seconds.

Analysis

Offshore wind facilities are generally expensive to build, and achieving economies of scale is difficult. After the COVID-19 lockdown and supply chain issues became a problem, the offshore-wind business became further financially troubled by higher wages and interest rates, which drove up the cost of borrowing, and a global shortage of vessels needed to haul turbines and their foundations from ports to job sites in the ocean. Several offshore wind projects were delayed, and financing was ultimately renegotiated to reflect higher costs for several of the halted projects. In many cases, high costs and intermittency make offshore wind a poor choice for generating electricity.

However, the Trump administration’s antagonism toward previously approved offshore wind projects raises concerns that a future administration could use executive power to stall other energy projects — as evidenced by actions taken by the Obama and Biden administrations.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #258 Welcome Back

January 9, 2026 by Leave a Comment

On the first episode of 2026 forThe Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the recent military intervention in Venezuela, updates on the prospects of permitting reform, and the untimely demise of Big Bird. Later in the show they are joined by Anthony Huston, CEO + Director of Graphite One, for another review of American mineral production.

Links:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , ,

Promises Made, Promises Kept: President Trump Withdraws U.S. from U.N. Climate Bureaucracy

January 8, 2026 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (1/8/26) – Yesterday, the White House announced the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations “that no longer serve American interests,” including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

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

“President Trump deserves tremendous praise for this decisive action to strongly prioritize our national interests. Exiting the UNFCCC will greatly benefit Americans and people around the world struggling with restrictive energy policies. Removing the U.S. from the U.N. climate framework will accelerate a positive shift towards abandoning the destructive global climate framework.

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the dedicated State Department team merit hearty congratulations for their thorough and insightful review of U.S. participation in international organizations and treaties. Huge credit also goes to the courageous organizations and individuals who have steadfastly opposed the UNFCCC ever since its proposal at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

“Bottom line, this is an outstanding and historic development for the United States and people around the world struggling to overcome energy poverty.”

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: , , , , ,

Venezuela Highlights Perils Of Nationalizing Energy

January 7, 2026 by Leave a Comment

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but its petroleum industry, which was once very productive, has been reduced to a fraction of its former capacity due to mismanagement, underinvestment due to failed government policies, and international sanctions. Rebuilding Venezuela’s oil output from 900,000 barrels per day — less than 1% of global oil supply — to its former productivity will be a challenge and take years, billions of dollars, and political stability.

U.S. Imports of Venezuelan Oil

Venezuelan crude once flowed heavily into the United States, peaking at 1.4 million barrels a day in 1997, when the shipments accounted for nearly half of the country’s oil production, according to the Energy Information Administration. That trade eroded steadily over the following two decades, falling to about 506,000 barrels a day by 2018. After Washington imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry in 2019 in response to President Nicolás Maduro’s disputed re-election, U.S. purchases dropped to negligible levels.

As explained by Reuters, to compensate, American refiners, particularly those along the Gulf and West coasts, turned to heavy crude from Canada and Mexico. Many of those facilities were built decades ago to process dense, high-sulfur oil and are poorly suited to handle the lighter, sweeter crude produced in large volumes from U.S. shale fields. As a result, much of the domestic light oil is exported, while refineries continue to rely on foreign heavy grades to operate efficiently.

China accounted for more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports of 768,000 barrels per day last year as it became the main importer of Venezuelan oil after President Trump imposed sanctions on the country’s energy industry in 2019. Recently, China’s imports of Venezuelan oil have declined as the United States increased enforcement of oil sanctions against the Maduro regime by seizing tankers.

Venezuela’s Oil Reserves Are Extensive 

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves of 303 billion barrels, accounting for approximately 17% of global reserves, which are concentrated in the Orinoco belt region. Via EnergyNow, operations in the Orinoco Belt require advanced extraction technologies like steam injection and diluents for transport. These are technologies that U.S. companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil are known to excel in. At current prices around $57 per barrel, the potential gross value would total $17.3 trillion. Even at half that value, or about $8.7 trillion, Venezuela’s GDP would be higher than the GDP of every nation except the United States and China.

U.S. oil companies helped discover and develop Venezuela’s oil beginning in the 1920s, with Venezuela becoming the world’s second-largest producer by the 1930s. Western companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, were forced to retreat after Venezuela nationalized the industry first in the 1970s and again under Hugo Chavez in the 2000s. According to Reuters, Venezuela’s production consequently shrank from a peak of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1970 to a low of 665,000 barrels per day in 2021 before slightly recovering in 2024. The Wall Street Journal reports that, after ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil pulled out of Venezuela in 2007 when Chávez nationalized their assets, Conoco sued the Venezuelan government for more than $20 billion, and Exxon sued for $12 billion. The companies were awarded only fractions of their losses in protracted arbitration proceedings.

According to the Wall Street Journal, for these companies to return and invest billions in the country’s oil industry, a broad economic stabilization plan is needed to attract the financing to rebuild infrastructure and rusted oil-field installations. Local laws also need to be modified to allow private energy firms to operate without state overreach. And the government has to restructure some $160 billion in debt and settle pending arbitration cases with foreign companies, including Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron.

To fully restore Venezuela’s oil sector is estimated to take five to seven years by one estimate and by at least a decade by another, and requires U.S. oil companies to “spend billions of dollars” to fix the “badly broken infrastructure.” According to the New York Times, this includes repairing looted pipes, abandoned rigs, and a mismanaged, corrupt industry. Despite an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela’s output has plummeted to about 900,000 barrels a day from about 3.5 million barrels a day in 1997. About one-third of it is produced by Chevron, exporting around 150,000 barrels per day to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

As reported by Reuters, assuming political, legal, and financial hurdles are resolved, developing new oil and gas projects would still take years. Venezuelan oil production could increase by up to 200,000 barrels per day in the first year, according to Rapidan Energy’s forecasts, and double to two million barrels per day within a decade under its most optimistic scenario.

Venezuela’s Electric Grid Will Also Be a Challenge

According to Grid Brief, Venezuela once had about 36 gigawatts of installed generation capacity. By the late 2010s, only about 10 to 12 gigawatts of capacity were available for reliable service.

Hydropower once accounted for the majority of the nation’s electricity, generating 65 to 80% in some years. The Guri Dam complex on the Caroní River in Bolívar state has a nameplate capacity of about 10,235 megawatts spread across more than 30 turbine-generator units of various sizes. Other hydro plants include the Caruachi Dam with about 2,160 megawatts and the Macagua complex with 3,168 megawatts across a couple of dozen units. When these units were affected by droughts in the mid-2010s, the country turned to thermal units to back up the hydropower. These plants include Termozulia, with about 1,590 megawatts of combined gas turbines near Maracaibo, Cardón Genevapca at 315 megawatts, and clusters of smaller units in places like Barinas, El Furrial, and Guarenas.

In the early 2010s, emergency programs purchased additional gas turbines and modular units, often under hastily negotiated contracts, to add 3,000 to 4,000 megawatts of capacity. However, many of the thermal plants were never properly integrated into the grid, lacked consistent natural gas or diesel supply, or were unfinished. Combined-cycle units were half-built, and imported wind turbines located on the Paraguaná peninsula produced almost no megawatts. By 2019, the thermal fleet’s effective contribution had collapsed, leaving hydro to carry nearly all of what little power remained.

Transmission and distribution losses rose into the mid-to-high 20% range, resulting in a quarter or more of every megawatt produced disappearing in transit due to aging lines, overheated transformers, poor maintenance, and outdated protection systems. Since 2019, the country has experienced thousands of outages each year. In western states like Zulia and the Andes, extended rationing of up to eight hours of cuts per day is normal.

Analysis

With Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro removed, a window of opportunity exists for Venezuela to become a prosperous, oil-producing country. However, any optimism should be tempered by the knowledge that achieving this outcome will require substantial political and economic reform. The lack of stable economic and social institutions, resulting in political repression and industry nationalization under Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, caused Venezuela to reach its current level of poverty and low oil production. It would take substantial American involvement to alter these institutions. Furthermore, low crude oil prices, poor infrastructure, and still-existing political risk mean that oil companies won’t be rushing to increase production in Venezuela anytime soon.

Another important consideration is how U.S. action in Venezuela will affect U.S.-China relations. As Allen Brooks writes for Master Resource, “The decision to allow Venezuela to sell oil to China ensures that the nation will retain its commercial relationships, which are essential for ongoing international business activity. At the same time, it is a signal to China that the U.S. will enforce the Monroe Doctrine policies, removing the Americas as a focal point for increased Chinese involvement, which has involved significant investment in mines, ports, and other South American industries. The move also puts China on notice that its Venezuelan oil flows could be shut off instantly over unfriendly actions towards the U.S., changing the energy landscape for China.”

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

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

California Mandates Billion Dollar, Bird-Butchering, Boondoggle Stay Online

January 6, 2026 by Leave a Comment

California is keeping the Ivanpah solar plant operating due to “reliability” and the state’s “green” energy mandates, despite concerns from the private sector and the federal government. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility was set to shut down in 2026 after failing to meet its energy targets. Despite receiving $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees, nearly 75% of the facility’s cost, it struggled to generate power and had to rely on natural gas to operate rather than the sun. In January, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) announced an agreement with the plant’s owners to terminate its contracts for two of the plant’s three units starting in 2026. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently rejected those contracts, citing shifting federal priorities, state policy regarding renewables project development, and sunk infrastructure costs.

As explained by the Review-Journal, to generate electricity, Ivanpah uses concentrated thermal power plants — a system of mirrors to reflect sunlight and generate thermal energy, which is then concentrated to power a steam engine. The plant, which cost $2.2 billion to build, was originally expected to run until 2039, but Solar Partners offered PG&E an opportunity to terminate the power purchase agreements to save ratepayers money. However, California’s stringent “green energy” goals, requiring 100% “clean” energy by 2045, are standing in the way.

Ivanpah has been accused of reportedly blinding pilots, incinerating over 6,000 birds a year, and generating power inefficiently. The Review-Journal explains that birds incinerated by Ivanpah are referred to as “streamers” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. Federal wildlife investigators reported an average of one “streamer” every two minutes on a visit to the plant 10 years ago. There are also other wildlife concerns with the plant, such as road runners that become trapped along its perimeter fencing and are attacked by predators.

The Ivanpah concentrated solar technology has essentially been replaced by solar photovoltaic (PV). Solar PV is the technology that is being built throughout the United States and abroad by utilities and installed on homeowners’ rooftops. According to Robert Bryce, Ivanpah is costing California residents an extra $100 million per year, but the state “can’t afford to let go of any renewables no matter how uneconomic.”

As he explains, “Ivanpah is producing about 750,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. Reports show that PG&E has been paying about $180 per megawatt‑hour for the electricity from Ivanpah. For comparison, new solar PV projects can produce power for about $40 per MWh. Thus, the CPUC commissioners — all appointed by Newsom — are requiring California ratepayers to pay a premium of $140 per MWh for the juice from Ivanpah, even though they could get the same electricity from cheaper sources. Simple multiplication ($140/MWh x 750,000 MWh/yr) shows that Newsom’s minions are mandating Californians to pay $105 million per year more for electricity from Ivanpah than they should be paying.”

California has the second-highest residential electricity price in the country at 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, second only to Hawaii. According to Robert Bryce, PG&E, the state’s largest utility, has been requesting rate increases and receiving them from the CPUC. Last year, the CPUC approved six rate increases. In March, the utility asked the CPUC for another rate increase, followed by another rate increase in October. In September, PG&E announced a $73 billion grid upgrade plan supposedly to meet surging artificial intelligence data center demand.

Rather than letting utilities determine the best technologies to meet consumers’ needs and achieve grid reliability, California has a renewable portfolio standard that mandates utilities add renewable energy like wind and solar power. Senate Bill (SB) 1078 created the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in 2002, beginning with a 20% renewables requirement by 2017. In 2015, SB 350 raised the RPS target to 50% by 2030; in 2018, SB 100 pushed it to 60% by 2030 and 100% “carbon-free” electricity by 2045.

Besides the RPS, California has other policies that intentionally increase electricity rates, including a carbon dioxide reduction mandate, net metering for solar, nuclear reactor closures, and electric vehicle charging subsidies, among others. Via Robert Bryce, last year, the CPUC issued a report predicting that the state’s electricity rates would soar over the next few years.

Analysis

Robert Bryce puts it well when he argues that, “The Ivanpah concentrated-solar project has been an environmental and economic disaster.” If California had allowed reliable generating technologies to continue being built instead of forcing their premature retirement in favor of “green” energy, consumers and businesses could have the power they need without rising rates. As is the case with keeping Ivanpah open, California’s policies force utilities to request rate increases to pay for their implementation.

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

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

Newsom’s Democrats Propose New Tax On Californians

January 5, 2026 by Leave a Comment

As the Washington Examiner explains, California’s newest tax proposal is basically a subscription service that bills monthly for how often a car is driven. According to KMPH 26, the state has been paying for road maintenance through an ever-increasing gas tax that covers about 80% of the state’s road maintenance. At the same time, the state wants people to transition to electric vehicles (EVs) to help meet its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As more people switch to electric and plug-in vehicles, California is realizing it needs a new way to cover road maintenance. The state ran a pilot program to test a per-mile fee that charged EV owners between two and four cents for every mile that they drove.

Via The Daily Overview, under the pilot program, volunteer drivers allowed the state to track their mileage using odometer readings, plug-in devices, or smartphone apps. Participants then received mock invoices showing what they would have paid under a per-mile road charge in place of the gasoline tax. The aim was to evaluate not only the technology behind mileage tracking, but also how motorists respond to seeing road use billed as a separate line item. An interim report to the legislature detailed how participants reacted to the various data-collection methods and pricing structures.

In 2017, California raised its state gas tax supposedly to maintain the state’s roads, despite a state budget of $179.5 billion. California has the highest gas tax in the country at 71 cents per gallon. But as more people switch to EVs, the gas tax will cover less of the state’s road costs. Despite California’s budget increasing to $325 billion, the state needs an additional tax to build and maintain its roads. The Washington Examiner argues that the per-mile tax will inevitably increase, as the gas tax did, requiring taxpayers to pay every month for the privilege of using state roads.

KMPH 26 broke down a possible hypothetical road tax as follows: “If you live in Hanford and commute to and from Fresno 5 days a week with a Toyota Camry, you would have to pay just over $11 if the road tax is 3 cents.” That is $11 per week if you commute about 40 minutes to work every day, not counting any other additional drives, or about $44 a month.

According to The Daily Overview, advocates say a per-mile tax more accurately reflects how much drivers use the roads and can be structured so that someone who drives 10,000 miles a year pays about the same as they would under the existing fuel tax, whether they drive a gasoline-powered SUV or an electric crossover.

Via CarScoops, there are issues with the program that need to be resolved, including drivers reporting lower mileage than actually driven. Options exist to monitor vehicle mileage, such as installing a tracking device that plugs into the car and logs the miles traveled. That could be an expensive option given the size of California, and balancing effective tracking with individual privacy rights could be a problem. Another issue is that a flat per‑mile fee would fall hardest on drivers who live far from job centers or cannot afford to live near transit, raising questions about whether the state should build in discounts or credits for low‑income households or rural residents. How the program is rolled out is another issue. Lawmakers will have to decide whether to phase in mileage fees first for EVs that currently pay little or nothing at the pump, or to move the entire fleet onto a per‑mile model at once.

Oregon’s Road Usage Charge

Oregon has a per-mile fee road usage program called OReGO. Volunteers pay a per-mile charge for the miles they drive and receive a non-refundable credit for fuel tax paid at the pump, and drivers of highly efficient vehicles and EVs are eligible for reduced registration fees. The current charge is two cents per mile driven, but beginning January 1, 2026, OReGO drivers will pay 2.3 cents per mile.

According to The Oregonian, the “road usage charge” of 2.3 cents per mile will go into effect for existing EV owners on July 1, 2027, new EV owners on January 1, 2028, and owners of hybrids on July 1, 2028. Hybrid owners will be reimbursed for any gas tax they paid. The mechanism for doing so still needs to be determined. Hybrid and EV owners who do not want the state tracking the number of miles they drive can pay a flat $340 annual “road usage charge” instead of 2.3 cents per mile driven.

Analysis

Transitioning to EVs requires broad economic and political reform, including new supply chains, charging infrastructure, and mechanisms for funding roads. California’s test of a road tax exemplifies an attempt to increase EVs’ share of the cost burden for road maintenance. It makes sense that EVs should pay for road maintenance when considering the costs their heaviness imposes on infrastructure. As we explained in When Government Chooses Your Car, “Due to their heavier weight, EVs contribute to increased wear on roads and bridges, leading to higher maintenance costs for infrastructure that are not typically accounted for in EV ownership costs.”

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

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