European Energy Disarmament Laid Bare By Iranian Conflict Shortages

The conflict with Iran is hitting Europeans very hard because energy prices were already higher there than in other regions due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. tariffs, European tax and climate policies, and bans/moratoria on fracking. Europe’s industries have faced years of high energy costs, enabling Chinese competition and leading to plant closures. Fears of deindustrialization were already common before the impacts of the Strait of Hormuz closure began to affect the continent. Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, could face a $46 billion hit over two years if oil stays at $100 a barrel, according to the IW German Economic Institute.

According to Reuters, Germany has some of the highest wholesale power prices worldwide at $132 per megawatt hour, significantly above $48 per megawatt hour in the United States and higher than the EU average of $120 per megawatt hour, according to International Energy Agency data. Germany has phased out its nuclear fleet and turned to renewable energy, which accounted for 55.9% of its electricity generation in 2025, mostly from intermittent wind and solar power. Its Energiewende by 2030 requires 80% of the electricity supply to come from renewable energy sources, rising to 100% by 2035.

Source: Reuters

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after various strikes on both sides of the Iran conflict propelled Brent oil prices to almost $120 a barrel, double the price at the start of 2026, before dropping below $100 a barrel due to President Trump’s announcement of ongoing talks with Iran. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz resulted in the reduction of about a fifth of global oil consumption that flows through the strait, with most of it headed for Asia.

According to the Wall Street Journal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Qatar, the second-biggest supplier of LNG globally after the United States, are expected to be offline for months. That means the world is losing nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas supplies, or about one-fifth of global LNG supplies. Qatar will not be able to resume production at prewar levels due to extensive damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan hub. QatarEnergy lost about 17% of its LNG export capacity when it was struck by Iran, and repairs are expected to take up to five years, with the damage affecting LNG supply to markets in Europe and Asia. QatarEnergy expects to lose about $20 billion in annual revenue. According to S&P Global Energy, other global LNG projects could theoretically add 2.3 to 2.8 million tons per month from April through June, which would not be enough to cover the roughly seven million tons Qatar produced per month before the Iran conflict began.

Besides the disruption to oil and gas markets, supplies of fertilizers, sulfur, helium, aluminum, and other critical raw materials have been affected by Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as the region accounts for significant production of all of them. Shipping costs have also surged.

Some Asian suppliers, which rely on oil from the Middle East, had declared force majeure, pushing up the price of their products. As the Journal reports, the supply crunch due to the closure of the strait is expected to lead to shutdowns at refineries and petrochemical complexes in Asia, which in turn will affect the output of products such as plastics. For example, one French company has suppliers in Vietnam and Thailand who have experienced force majeure and cannot ship raw materials, from which the French company gets 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons of polymers a year, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, the French trade association Polyvia, which represents plastics and composites companies, is raising concerns with the government, saying suppliers are using soaring gas costs to renegotiate contracts and push for higher prices. European governments have less fiscal room than in 2022 to shield industry with massive subsidies. Therefore, if oil heads towards $130 a barrel, there will be a significantly greater risk of default in sectors such as metals and chemicals.

The United States Is in a Different Position

Due to President Trump’s energy dominance program and the nation’s vast energy resources, the United States is in a different position than Europe. U.S. West Texas Intermediate oil prices are about 10% lower than Brent oil prices, and retail gasoline prices are less than $4 a gallon, on average, as of March 26. The United States is also the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and a major oil and gas exporter, selling 8.9 trillion cubic feet of LNG in 2025.

Countries are looking for secure supplies and turning to the United States. Asian refiners are sending oil cargoes from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Asia through the Panama Canal due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. oil producers are increasing production wherever possible and where they are not constrained by infrastructure. In the Permian Basin, for example, oil production growth is limited by associated gas production because excess pipeline capacity does not exist to transport it. Oil companies are also wary about adding drilling rigs because it is unclear how long the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed. Its opening will lower oil prices as more supply will be available.

Analysis

U.S. energy abundance is protecting American consumers from the severe price shocks seen in Europe due to the conflict with Iran. European energy prices were high even before the conflict began, largely due to climate regulations and subsidies for renewable energy technologies that crowd out reliable sources. How long prices will remain elevated depends on how long the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Once opened, it will take some time for producers to gear up production.

consumers.”


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

The Unregulated Podcast #267: Not A Florida Man

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the failed state of New York and the latest Democrat delusions from around the country.

Links:

Senator Schumer’s Energy Speech Sidesteps Accountability; Blue State Policies Have Long Kept Electricity and Gas Prices Sky-High

In his March 16, 2026, floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of fueling an “energy affordability crisis” through canceled clean energy projects and foreign entanglements, particularly the conflict in Iran, which has indeed driven up global oil and gas prices.

While the Iran situation has contributed to higher gasoline costs nationwide, Schumer’s narrative conveniently sidesteps the deeper, pre-existing drivers of energy unaffordability in many Democrat-led states. These states have long prioritized aggressive renewable mandates, fossil fuel restrictions, policies that raise gasoline prices, and the premature retirement of reliable baseload power over consumer affordability and grid reliability.

For instance, California and New York’s residential electricity rates are almost double the national average. Democrats from these states have no interest in securing affordable energy for their constituents. Instead, they push mandates for 100% carbon-free or renewable power by mid-century, the premature retirement of reliable power plants, restrictions on natural gas infrastructure, and cost-shifting policies such as net metering for solar– all measures that burden everyday citizens and ratepayers. In fact, last year, 86% of states with above-average electricity prices were reliably blue, while 80% of the lowest-priced states were red. High costs aren’t an accident; they’re the predictable outcome of choosing climate symbolism and anti-fossil fuel regulations over consumer wallets. This pattern holds in the most recent data, with blue states consistently paying 30-40% more on average for electricity than red states. High costs in states like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts aren’t anomalies; they’re policy outcomes.

New York

New York’s fracking ban provides a prime example of how the very policies championed by Democrat leaders like Chuck Schumer contribute to the energy affordability problems he decries. This suppression of domestic natural gas production has prevented the creation of thousands of jobs in the state, and it contributes to New York’s persistently high energy costs. Even though New York has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, prices for residents run about 20% higher than the national benchmark.

Democrat-led state governments in New York have historically blocked or delayed several major natural gas pipeline projects. Key examples include the Constitution Pipeline, which was repeatedly rejected starting in 2016, and the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, which was denied multiple times between 2018 and 2020 for similar reasons. In 2016, Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject the permit for the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project, arguing it would impose environmental and health risks on New Yorkers with little benefit. Senator Schumer has spoken out against other regional gas infrastructure, such as the North Brooklyn Pipeline, protesting it in 2021 alongside activists.

California

In California, Governor Newsom has been eager to blame higher gas prices on the Iran conflict and even Trump, but this rings hollow. California’s gasoline prices are a stark story of self-inflicted wounds. The state consistently pays far more at the pump, with prices at $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon above the national average in recent years. In 2025 alone, Californians shelled out an extra $20 billion for gasoline compared to the national average, based on consumption of over 13.4 billion gallons.

California has the highest combined taxes and fees on gasoline in the nation, with direct taxes and fees totaling approximately 90 cents per gallon. This breakdown includes the federal excise tax of about 18 cents per gallon, the state excise tax of 61 cents per gallon, an average state and local sales tax component of roughly 9 cents per gallon, and the underground storage tank maintenance fee of 2 cents per gallon. In addition to these explicit levies, California imposes significant environmental compliance costs that are passed on to consumers, further driving up pump prices. These primarily arise from the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which adds 14 cents per gallon, and the Cap-and-Invest Program, which adds 24 cents per gallon. Meanwhile, other blue states like Michigan and Washington recently raised their gas taxes by 5.2 and 6.2 cents per gallon, respectively. This isn’t primarily due to global events or Trump policies; it’s the direct result of decades of anti-production regulations under governors like Gavin Newsom and his predecessors.

California, once the third-largest oil-producing state, has seen production decline consistently since the 1980s. Domestic output didn’t dry up naturally; permitting and development were systematically restricted, leading to a collapse in production. California’s dependency on Middle Eastern oil stems from California’s own choices to suppress in-state and Alaskan production, which once fueled its refineries. Environmental groups and Democratic policies have pushed this outcome for years. Rather than owning it, Newsom deflects accountability while pursuing even more regulatory mandates that would further raise prices.

Political Games Aren’t a Substitute for Sound Policy

When the choice is between playing political games or pursuing sound policies, Democrats will choose the former every time. Schumer’s speech and the accompanying Democratic report are attempts to score points in the midterm messaging war, but they overlook how similar progressive energy policies have already made life more expensive for millions in Democrat-led states. True energy affordability comes from balanced, pro-production approaches, not from stonewalling market-driven projects, vilifying fossil fuels, or creating foreign dependencies that expose consumers to global volatility. Red states deliver reliable, affordable power by embracing oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear and avoiding aggressive phase-outs of these baseload sources–outcomes Democrats could replicate if they prioritized wallets over ideology.

Americans deserve an honest accounting of what actually drives costs, not partisan spin that ignores the mirror. If Democrats truly want lower energy bills, they might start by examining the high-price outcomes in their own backyards.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s Hypocrisy on Gas Prices Is Breathtaking

Governor Gavin Newsom has been busy on X lately, posting repeatedly about gasoline prices and blaming the war in Iraq for driving them higher. He is correct that the conflict in Iran affects oil markets, but the governor has some explaining to do. Twenty percent of the oil California uses flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and that’s a consequence of Newsom’s own energy policies. Before California’s governor lectures the rest of the country about gasoline prices, he should answer a simple question: Why are California’s gasoline prices so much higher than the national average?  

Data Source: GasBuddy.com

California Has the Highest Gas Prices in the Country. Newsom Helped Built That.

How much does California pay for Gavin’s anti-oil policies? In 2025, California paid $20 billion more for gasoline than the national average. 

Here’s the math:   

California used more than 13.4 billion gallons of gasoline in 2025. The average price in 2025 (before the Iran conflict) was roughly $1.50 per gallon above the national average. That means Californians paid $20.1 billion more in 2021 than they would have if they had paid the national average.  

Today, this comparison is even worse. California’s gasoline prices are $1.80 more than the national average.    

As recently as 2016, California was the third-largest oil-producing state in the country. By 2025, it had fallen to eighth. California didn’t run out of oil. Newsom and previous administrations systematically restricted the permitting and development of California’s domestic resources, leading to a collapse in production. The state that once helped launch the global oil industry now imports nearly two-thirds of its oil from foreign sources.

In 1988, approximately 95% of the oil supplied to California refineries came from California and Alaska. Today, 63.5% comes from foreign sources — with 21% from Iraq, 5% from Saudi Arabia, and 4% from the UAE. That’s the chart Newsom should be showing in his X posts (and the chart below is from the state of California):

Source: California Energy Commission

The growth in California’s foreign oil dependency isn’t a market phenomenon. It’s the predictable real-world consequence of decades of anti-production policy.

The Real Reason Newsom Is Blaming Trump and Iran

Newsom’s pivot to blaming Trump and Middle East instability for California’s gas prices is strategically transparent. As noted above, 20% of the oil California uses comes from the Middle East, specifically through the Strait of Hormuz. That exposure exists because California has made itself dependent on foreign oil by suppressing domestic and Alaskan production.

The point of blaming Trump is not to solve California’s gasoline price problem. The point is to avoid accountability for the policy choices that created it. California-based environmental activist groups have spent years working to reduce oil production in Alaska and at home. The result is a state where two-thirds of its oil supply is imported, and the governor is surprised when geopolitical risk in the Middle East shows up at the pump.

The Fix Is Obvious. Newsom Won’t Take It.

California has significant remaining oil resource potential. It could expand in-state production. It could work to support more oil development in Alaska rather than opposing it. Either path would reduce foreign energy dependence and put downward pressure on the prices Newsom is now complaining about.

Instead, Newsom is trying to further increase gasoline prices in California through additional regulatory mandates, while posting on social media about gasoline prices as though it’s someone else’s fault.

The Unregulated Podcast #266: A Dry Buffalo (3/14/26)

On this week’s episode, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, recent primary election news, the new shale refinery in Texas, and McKenna’s back-and-forth with Senator Cramer on the PROVE IT Act in the Washington Times.

Links:

Strait of Hormuz  – Source: CNN

Hern Running in OK – Source: Fox News

Rahm EmmanuelSource: WSJ

The Exodus Continues, Starbucks – Source: WSJ

Yahama to leave CASource: Fox Business

Funny How That Works: Competition in Health CareSource: Washington Post

New Refinery: 100% ShaleSource: PR Newswire

McKenna responds to Senator Cramer on the PROVE IT Act – Source: Washington Times

Will Carb hit the brakes on new CA climate rules? Even some Dems want them to. – Source: NY Post

Lights out in NY – Source: NY Sun

The Unregulated Podcast #265: Yabber, Yabber, Yabber (3/7/26)

On this episode of the Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the conflict in Iran and its impact on energy markets.

Links:

Noem Out, Mullin In – Source: Politico

Iran: One Side: Rand Paul – Source: Fox News The Other Side: – Source: The Dispatch

China’s Oil Dilemma – Source: Politico

AI Anxiety: Blackrock Limits Withdrawals – Source: Bloomberg

Senate Permitting Talks Back On – Source: The Hill

Who Actually Wrote the Climate Manual for Federal Judges? – Source: The Honest Broker/Roger Pielke

AEA Applauds Judgment in Dakota Access Pipeline Case Against Greenpeace

WASHINGTON DC (03/03/2026) – Last week, a judge in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay damages totaling $345 million to pipeline company Energy Transfer. This comes after a 2025 North Dakota jury found them liable for conspiracy and trespassing, among other charges, for efforts to sabotage the Dakota Access Pipeline.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“This latest judgment against Greenpeace marks a decisive win for America’s ability to deliver energy to consumers. For years, certain activist organizations have engaged in disruptive and, at times, unlawful activities aimed at halting critical infrastructure projects, including pipeline development. These actions have threatened worker safety and community well-being, damaged property and the environment, and impacted all those who depend on affordable, reliable energy.

“Since entering service, the Dakota Access Pipeline has lowered transportation costs and generated roughly $750 million in additional proceeds for public use in North Dakota. It has become a cornerstone of the state’s economy, where innovative oil and natural gas development accounts for nearly one-third of its economic activity.

“This recent judgment underscores the importance of accountability and the rule of law. And while it is an encouraging milestone, our judicial system must stand firm in holding these obstructionists accountable for their unlawful actions, as they inevitably appeal the ruling. Our energy security cannot be treated as a pawn in their dogmatic games.”

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

The Unregulated Podcast #264: What Is It Going To Get Me This Time? (3/2/26)

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the escalating situation in Iran, companies leaving blue states, and Germany ditching its climate targets.

Links:

Iran – Source: Politico

More Companies Leaving Blue States: Public Storage – Source: LA Times

Happy Anniversary, LNG Exports – Source: Forbes

Geothermal, the New Wind and Solar – Source: Euronews

Greenpeace Lawsuit – Source: AP News

SCOTUS Takes Up Boulder Climate Lawfare Case – Source: WSJ Opinion

Germany Starts Ditching Climate Targets – Source: The Guardian

Grounded: California’s Burgeoning Aviation Fuel Crisis

California’s declining oil production and refinery closures, caused by the state’s energy policies, could create an “aviation fuel crisis.” An increasing dependence on imported aviation fuel could threaten national security. Several U.S. military installations, including Travis Air Force Base and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, rely almost entirely on California refineries for their jet fuel. According to the Energy Information Administration, California ranks first in jet fuel demand among the states. Via AVWeb, California imports approximately one million barrels of oil per day, with about 20% of its jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel coming from India. India has been obtaining about 40% of its oil from Russia, though it is winding down those imports due to additional sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s 50% tariffs on its goods.

California had more than 40 refineries in 1991, but only eight remain as of October 2025. The lack of refineries and the unique nature of California’s gasoline blend are causes for California’s gasoline prices to be over $1.60 higher than the nation’s average price. According to PennyGem, with the closure of Valero’s refinery in Benicia in the spring of 2026, California will lose 145,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel daily — about 8% of the state’s refining capacity. California’s gasoline prices are expected to increase by 15 cents per gallon, with possible spikes above $7 or $8 per gallon. The loss of 2.2 billion gallons annually affects not only personal vehicles, but also shipping routes, aviation, and emergency services. California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state’s lawmakers are reviewing emergency measures, including infrastructure upgrades and strategic fuel reserves, but admit that such efforts may not avert near-term consequences of the closure stemming from the state’s regulations.

Via PennyGem, California’s unique fuel standards and pipeline limitations mean replacement barrels must come from overseas — primarily Asia and the Middle East — at higher costs and longer transit times. Other U.S. refineries do not make the fuels required by the state, resulting in imports of the refined products in tankers crossing the Pacific. California believes that its onerous regulations and higher resulting petroleum prices would make consumers move more quickly to electric vehicles and solar and wind power. The state’s 27 million licensed drivers, however, still rely heavily on gasoline. While some consumers are switching to electric vehicles, that transition is slower than the closure of the state’s refineries and the availability of domestically produced petroleum products.

Background

California’s oil refiners are confronting mounting regulatory and cost pressures as the state races toward its ambitious climate goals. A suite of new emissions targets, rules on gasoline-vehicle sales, and tougher transparency mandates has reshaped the business landscape — prompting Phillips 66, for example, to announce the closure of its Los Angeles refinery after lawmakers required facilities to keep larger fuel stockpiles to prevent price spikes.

The regulatory squeeze comes as California’s own oil output has been in long-term decline. Production has fallen for most of the past four decades, even as states like Texas and New Mexico have surged ahead. Since taking office, Governor Gavin Newsom has layered on additional restrictions, including measures to phase out fossil fuels from both production and consumption. He has pushed for a ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and, in 2022, signed a law prohibiting oil and gas drilling within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, hospitals, and other buildings — despite the fact that many of those structures were built decades after nearby oil operations began.

That same year, state regulators adopted a sweeping climate plan to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. The blueprint includes cutting oil and gas consumption to less than one-tenth of today’s levels, a target that further clouds the investment outlook for refineries already weighing whether to upgrade, convert, or shut down.

Newsom has also taken an increasingly confrontational stance toward the industry. In September 2023, his administration filed a lawsuit accusing oil companies of misleading the public about climate change for decades. He later signed legislation enabling the state to pursue refiners for alleged price gouging. Under SB X1-2, the California Energy Commission can set a maximum profit margin for in-state refiners and penalize companies that exceed it. Another bill, AB X2-1, expands reporting and disclosure requirements across the refining sector.

Together, the policies signal a state determined to accelerate its energy transition — even as they raise questions about the future of California’s remaining refining capacity.

Analysis

Refiners cannot survive in California with Governor Newsom’s policies against oil companies and their oil and gasoline production, threatening the state’s aviation fuel supply. These refinery closures are a response to policy actions by California, including a goal of reducing gasoline use to one-tenth its current consumption by 2045. Governor Newsom’s recently proposed Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit will do little to better the situation. A better approach involves allowing refiners to determine the amount and type of fuel they produce without overburdening regulations or subsidies. As we’ve written previously, “California’s history of progressive legislation favoring renewable energy is a clear example of the risks of government market intervention in determining winners and losers in business. Had renewable energy been required to compete on equal terms with conventional fuels, the free market would have responded accordingly, with either outright rejection or specific feedback on the innovations needed to make the technology viable for consumers.”


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research on November 25, 2025.

American Natural Gas Is Powering The Future

While natural gas is preferred by data centers and manufacturers, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its Short-Term Energy Outlook, reports that solar power is expected to supply the largest increase in power generation over the next two years, increasing by about 20% a year in both 2026 and 2027, following the addition of almost 70 gigawatts of new solar capacity. Solar and wind developers are rushing to bring online new capacity before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits for renewables. Under the act, tax credits pay for as much as 30% of the cost of solar installations. Solar also has other challenges, including hefty land requirements, intermittency, and grid integration issues, requiring hard-to-source transmission lines to get power from generation sites to demand centers.

Natural gas, however, is still the major source of generation and the fuel of choice for data centers and manufacturers, supplying around 40% in both 2026 and 2027, according to EIA’s forecasts. Solar is expected to supply less than 10% as it is not as efficient, providing only about a quarter of the energy that natural gas can supply with the same amount of capacity. EIA projects only three gigawatts of new natural gas capacity coming online in 2026 and 2027.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. utilities installed about 4.5 gigawatts of natural gas capacity in 2025, and the agency is forecasting that 44.9 gigawatts of proposed new capacity, including 22.7 gigawatts of high-probability projects, will come online in the near future. Those figures are more than the 12.7 gigawatts of gas retirements FERC expects through November 2028. Natural gas currently makes up 42% of the installed electric-generating capacity in the United States, with wind making up 11.9% and solar, 12%. As mentioned above, capacity numbers are not comparable, as both wind and solar are less efficient than natural gas, only performing when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.

Due to the shale drilling boom, U.S. natural gas production continues to reach new records, and the United States is now the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, but manufacturers still are cut off from natural gas supplies during extreme weather days due to insufficient pipeline capacity because priority goes to residential customers when demand rises. That is also why the Northeast had to rely on oil for 40% of its electricity generation during Arctic storm Fern last month. Due to long-term supply deals guaranteeing space on pipelines, overseas buyers are also not cut off from supplies.

Manufacturing Gas Curtailments

The Wall Street Journal reports that pipelines, curtailed or otherwise, restricted the flow of gas to manufacturers more than 40 times last year. Paul Cicio, chief executive of Industrial Energy Consumers of America, expects it may be worse this year. Some manufacturers had to wind down their operations when high gas prices made their operations unprofitable. On-the-spot gas deliveries at trading hubs in areas hardest hit by Fern soared to some of the highest prices on record.

According to the Journal, Cicio’s organization asked FERC to shorten the length of pipeline supply contracts to a few years, from more than a decade, since very few industries can make a commitment lasting that long. The group also requested that the Energy Department restrict uncontracted LNG shipments during heat waves and winter storms. American manufacturers have a large advantage over global competitors due to cheap natural gas fueled by the shale gas boom, but supply interruptions interfere with that advantage, particularly when they can last up to a week as they did for some manufacturers during winter storm Fern.

Data Center Electricity Demand

Via the World Resources Institute, data centers are being accused of increasing electricity demand and causing electricity prices to escalate. According to Rystad Energy, the United States is expected to have over 100 gigawatts of data center demand coming online between 2024 and 2035, which is about 10 times New York City’s summer peak demand in 2023, when air conditioners were operating at full blast. In comparison, an Electric Power Research Institute paper from 2024 found that electricity demand for data centers could consume anywhere between 4.6% and 9.1% of all U.S. electricity generation by 2030. The difference with the Rystad projection is around 200 terawatt-hours. Most data center use projections through 2030 range from 200 terawatt hours per year to over 1,050 terawatt hours per year, with most being between 300 and 400 terawatt hours. One study, however, found no evidence of national electricity demand growth, but certain regional and utility demands are expected to increase.

Clearly, the amount of demand arising from data centers is still a question mark. But, unlike the technology boom in the 2000s, most forecasters believe there will be an increase, although by how much is unknown.

Analysis

Data centers want reliable power, not power produced from intermittent wind and solar sources. Developers require sources that can power these centers decades into the future and are, therefore, looking to natural gas generation, either from utilities or from dedicated on-site sources.

Moreover, data center demand is not the primary driver of higher electricity rates. For instance, Texas and Virginia have built more data centers than anyone else and their electricity rates are below the national average. As IER’s Alex Stevens and Samuel Peterson explain for the Washington Post, “The machines aren’t the main problem. The red tape strangling the U.S. grid is. Remove it, and America can have both cutting-edge AI and abundant electricity.”


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