Trump Working To Save New Yorkers From Their Own State Government

Trump wants to revive a canceled pipeline that would carry natural gas from Pennsylvania’s shale gas fields to New York, indicating that it could cut energy prices in the Northeast by as much as 70%. The 124-mile Constitution Pipeline project was abandoned due to legal and regulatory challenges that made it economically unfeasible. The pipeline was proposed in 2013 at a projected cost under $700 million, but delays and legal challenges drove up the costs by nearly 40%. After the project received Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval in 2014, New York regulators refused to issue water quality permits, citing concerns about danger to wetlands and stream crossings. New York State lawmakers have passed anti-gas laws and it has banned fracking in the state. The Constitution Pipeline project was scrapped in 2020.

The pipeline had four project partners. The principal partner was The Williams Cos., based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Other partners are Duke Energy, Houston-based Cabot Oil and Gas, and Calgary, Alberta-based Alta Gas. Williams had a 41% stake and, in 2019, took a loss of $354 million for the project. The Williams Cos. indicated that its existing pipeline network and planned expansions are better investments than new projects like Constitution that are impacted by an uncertain regulatory framework.

Trump’s Announcement

President Trump asserted that “most of the permits — almost all of the permits” for the project are already in place. During a press conference, he said, “We are going to get this done, and once we start construction, we’re looking at anywhere from nine to 12 months, if you can believe it.” Limited pipeline capacity has hindered the Northeast’s access to natural gas.

President Trump did not indicate how the pipeline would be authorized or whether Williams Cos. would resume construction. Trump also raised the possibility of using eminent domain to secure land for the project, though he prefers to avoid that route.

New York Anti-Gas Policies

New York was the first state in the country to ban natural gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings. The law bans gas-powered stoves, furnaces, and propane heating and encourages the use of other appliances, such as heat pumps and induction stoves, in most new residential buildings across the state. An induction stove — the most efficient electric range — costs about $1,000 and also requires the use of induction-capable cookware, which may mean additional expenses for purchasers. The law requires all-electric heating and cooking in new buildings shorter than seven stories by 2026 and for taller buildings by 2029. Sixty to 70% of N.Y. homes cook with natural gas. It also prohibits other gas-powered appliances in new residential buildings, such as water heaters and clothes dryers.

New York banned hydraulic fracturing technology in 2014 for oil and gas development. Despite having a section of the Marcellus shale basin in the state, New York produces less than 1%of the natural gas it consumes and imports the rest from outside its borders. New York’s ban on hydraulic fracturing cuts off about 12 million acres of the Marcellus Shale — an underground rock formation with natural gas reserves that have helped fuel an energy-production boom in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. Local communities in New York hoped to revive stagnating economies by producing natural gas from the Marcellus, but the state will not permit it. The stagnating economies would benefit from the investment, jobs, and royalties that would come from providing energy to lower natural gas prices for New York and neighboring states, perhaps leading to a rebirth of manufacturing as it has in Pennsylvania. To make matters worse for gas producers, New York lawmakers strengthened the ban on fracking by recently passing a bill that would block natural gas drilling companies from using an extraction method that involves injecting liquid carbon dioxide into the ground.

Source: IER

New York recently approved a controversial law that creates a climate superfund by taxing oil, natural gas, and coal companies $75 billion to fund climate projects, which will be added to the energy bills of New Yorkers. New York’s bill taxes energy companies that were the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases between 2000 and 2024, with a combined total of $3 billion annually for 25 years to fund projects politicians want under the guise of climate change mitigation. The companies are expected to begin putting money into the climate fund starting in 2028, giving state officials time to establish how to identify and notify responsible companies. The state must create rules on identifying responsible parties, inform companies of the fines, and make a system to determine which infrastructure projects will be paid for by the fund. The law’s impact will be significant, with annual fees levied on domestic and international energy producers.

On February 6, 2025, 22 states sued New York state in federal court, claiming the climate superfund unfairly harms businesses and people within their states and that the New York law was usurping federal authority under the Clean Air Act. Now, natural gas and electricity prices are spiking in New York state and Governor Hochul is reversing herself on some previous positions, including allowing for more gas to be produced and transported. For example, Hochul approved permits to expand the capacity of the 414-mile Iroquois pipeline and pump more natural gas into New York City and southern Connecticut to maintain adequate supply during cold spells and to avoid freezeouts.

Conclusion

The state of New York has constrained the supply of natural gas to the state by banning fracking and rejecting a pipeline transporting gas from Pennsylvania, causing gas prices in New York to be higher than they would be without those restrictions. President Trump, citing an energy emergency, plans to complete the Constitution pipeline, which would carry gas from Pennsylvania shale fields that were abandoned in 2020 due to legal challenges and the denial of a water quality permit by New York State. The impediments raised the cost of the 124-mile proposed pipeline by around 40%. Trump expects natural gas prices to be reduced by up to 70% when the pipeline is completed, which he expects in 9 to 12 months once construction starts. New York State legislators have passed a number of bills that are anti-gas, including banning natural gas from being used in most new buildings.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #219: Beyond Parody 

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna examine the disarrayed Democratic Party and cover the fallout from the latest week in Trump’s golden era.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

AEA Comments on House Vote to Repeal Ban on Gas-Fueled Water Heaters

WASHINGTON DC (2/27/28) – Today, the U.S. House voted 221-198-2 to pass H.J.Res. 20. The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to express congressional disapproval of the Department of Energy’s ban on certain gas-fueled water heaters. The vote will be scored for AEA’s American Energy Scorecard.

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

“The Department of Energy’s water heater rule is an outdated holdover from a bygone era. Energy efficiency standards were originally established 50 years ago, during a time when there were concerns about the U.S. depleting its domestic energy supplies and becoming too dependent on the Middle East. That scenario is no longer relevant—today, the U.S. is the world’s leading producer of both natural gas and oil. Meanwhile, technological advancements have made appliances incredibly efficient, to the point where these current regulations would only save consumers a few dollars annually—if at all. These minimal savings, which come at the cost of convenience and consumer choice, highlight the futility and harm of the rule. In reality, the rule isn’t about saving consumers money; it’s an attempt to push them away from energy sources that the previous administration disapproved of.

“Shameful regulations like these not only limit consumer freedom and choice, but they also almost always hit low-income and elderly Americans the hardest. I am pleased to see House members prioritized this repeal and are continuing to put the American people first. I look forward to seeing the Senate taking the same actions.” 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

American Energy Alliance Comments on House Vote to Repeal Methane Tax

WASHINGTON DC (2/26/25) – Today, the House passed H.J. Res. 35 with a vote of 220-206-1. The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to express congressional disapproval of the methane emissions tax on U.S. oil and gas producers. The vote will be scored for AEA’s American Energy Scorecard.

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

“It cannot be overstated—reliable and affordable energy is absolutely essential to the success of the American economy. The EPA’s methane fee is an unnecessary tax on energy. Energy producers already have a clear economic incentive to reduce methane leakage, as natural gas is a valuable product. Adding an EPA tax on top of this existing motivation only increases compliance costs. Ultimately, consumers bear the burden of this tax through higher energy bills, as the costs are passed on. The true objective of this regulation appears to be raising the cost of reliable energy in an effort to promote other, more ideologically favored energy sources.

“The previous administration’s methane emissions tax was simply another attempt to harm an industry they oppose, all while advancing an ideology the American people have clearly rejected. The Biden administration finalized this methane tax in November, once the political risks of imposing such a costly policy on Americans were no longer a concern. I’m pleased to see that Republican leaders are listening to the American people and have made repealing this tax a top priority in the new Congress.”

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

Key Vote YES on S.J. Res.12 

The American Energy Alliance supports S.J. Res. 12, providing for congressional disapproval of the EPA methane fee. 

The EPA methane fee is nothing more than an unnecessary tax on energy. Energy producers already have a strong economic incentive to minimize methane leakage throughout their processes because natural gas is marketable product. Piling an EPA tax on top of that existing business rationale is unnecessary. It raises compliance costs without providing any additional incentive to further reduce emissions. Ultimately, end consumers pay the cost of this tax on their heating bills as the tax is passed through. Thus the true goal of this regulation is increasing the cost of reliable energy sources in an attempt to advantage more ideologically preferred energy sources.

A YES vote on S.J. Res. 12 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

Key Vote YES on H.J. Res. 35 and H.J. Res. 20

The American Energy Alliance supports H.J. Res. 35, providing for congressional disapproval of the EPA methane fee and H.J. Res. 20, providing for congressional disapproval of the Department of Energy rules on gas fired tankless water heaters. Both these rulemakings were part of the previous administration’s efforts to increases energy costs and limit consumer choice in pursuit of its ideological goals.

The EPA methane fee is nothing more than an unnecessary tax on energy. Energy producers already have a strong economic incentive to minimize methane leakage throughout their processes because natural gas is marketable product. Piling an EPA tax on top of that existing business rationale is unnecessary. It raises compliance costs without providing any additional incentive to further reduce emissions. Ultimately, end consumers pay the cost of this tax on their heating bills as the tax is passed through. Thus the true goal of this regulation is increasing the cost of reliable energy sources in an attempt to advantage more ideologically preferred energy sources.

The Dept. of Energy water heater rule is an obsolete relic of another time. Energy efficiency standards were created 50 years ago when politicians feared we were running out of domestic energy sources and dangerously reliant on the Middle East. That world is long past and the U.S. is the world’s leading natural gas, as well as leading oil, producer. Additionally, technology development has made appliances enormously efficient in energy use, so efficient that these current rules, as restrictive and destructive as they are, would only theoretically save customers a few dollars a year. Such meager supposed savings, at the cost of convenience and consumer choice, in pursuit of obsolete goals expose the pointless destructiveness of this rule. Indeed, the rule isn’t about saving customers money, it is about trying to force customers to stop using the energy sources that the previous administration disliked. It was an inappropriate and unnecessary rule to pursue.

YES votes on H.J. Res. 35 and H.J. Res. 20 are a votes in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include these votes in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #218: The Competition

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest stories emerging from the Trump administration, the Hill, CPAC, and more.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Big Green, Inc. Slush Fund Slashed Thanks To President Trump

The Trump administration has frozen federal grants for everything from battery factories to electric school buses and issued executive orders that have halted federal approvals for wind and solar projects. The freeze has not come a minute too soon as “clean” energy companies funded by Obama and Biden administration grants are dying on the vine. The latest is Canadian electric bus company Lion Electric, which was given almost $160 million to manufacture battery-powered buses for school districts. Recently, Lion initiated bankruptcy proceedingslaid off all employees tasked with building its buses, and paused manufacturing operations. Another recent example is the Ivanpah solar plant in California, which closed after operating for ten years. Obama’s Department of Energy (DOE) provided a $1.6 billion loan guarantee, and his Treasury Department provided a $535 million grant to Ivanpah. The loan guarantee and grant were on top of the investment tax credit, the accelerated depreciation (an assumed plant life of five years), and a depreciation bonus of 50 percent in the first year.

In Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin is worried that the Trump administration will cut funding to the “Solar for All” program, locking the state out of more than $100 million for solar energy projects. To replace the state’s coal generation, about 670 square miles of expensive and unreliable solar panels would be needed on almost 500,000 acres of productive farmland. So, rather than grow crops the world needs, the state would use the land for solar panels that mainly come from China, which produces them and the polysilicon they need with cheap coal-powered electricity. China continues to add coal plants every week while Biden regulations no longer allow them to be built in the United States unless equipped with unproven and expensive carbon capture and sequestration technology.

One of the most notorious solar company failures was Obama-backed Solyndra. The Obama administration backed solar panel maker Solyndra with a $535 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan from the DOE in September 2009. The funding was allocated as part of a $787 billion stimulus package. Obama’s DOE backed the company because a number of major Obama fundraisers had substantial investments in the firm despite concerns raised within his administration about the company’s viability. The plant was visited numerous times by Obama administration luminaries, including Obama himself, yet in 2011, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, these “green” energy companies, because they depend on government funding, often fail even after winning lucrative government contracts. That is because the federal government does not have a good track record at picking winners over losers, which the market should do through private investment funding.

Electric Buses

According to the World Resources Institute, 67 percent of the planned electric school buses in the United States have been funded by the federal government through EPA’s Clean School Bus Program created by the 2021 infrastructure bill, funding over 8,000 electric buses in 49 states, four U.S. territories, Washington DC, and 55 Tribal school districts. EPA has spent $5 billion over five years underwriting electric buses for schools that could not afford them otherwise. The funding requires low-income and rural school districts, school districts in areas most affected by air pollution, and other environmental justice factors to be prioritized in allotting the funds while also requiring them to scrap older diesel buses to qualify. Priority districts are eligible for funding up to the full cost of 25 buses and the necessary chargers. A year ago, the EPA had spent $1.84 billion from the fund on 5,103 electric buses, which averaged to more than $360,000 per bus — 3 to 6 times more than diesel buses that cost between $65,000 and $100,000 each and which can use existing infrastructure for refueling.

Lion Electric, whose loan is part of the Clean School Bus funding, is on the hook to deliver $95 million worth of electric buses to 55 districts nationwide. Since 2020, Lion reported net losses totaling $301.6 million. Last year, Lion also received a letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission for misreporting several key figures in its financial disclosures. In March 2024, a group of investors filed a class action suit against Lion, alleging the company withheld the truth about supply chain problems it faced and misled investors with “grossly unrealistic financial projections.” Lion was also getting funds from EPA’s $3 billion clean port program.

In December, Lion filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada, initiated bankruptcy proceedings in Illinois federal court, and weeks after that, laid off all its employees, excluding 150 tasked with customer service and maintenance duties. Lion also halted production at its 900,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Joliet, Illinois, which opened less than 18 months earlier.

Lion is not the only electric bus company to fail. In August 2023, Proterra filed for bankruptcy protection. Proterra was a favorite of Biden, Vice President Harris, and Secretaries Buttigieg and Granholm. Harris praised the Proterra’s electric buses, calling them “very user-friendly” and marveling at how quietly the brakes work. President Biden also praised Proterra’s products, and his administration has featured the green energy company at events. DOE Secretary Granholm had financial positions in Proterra, on whose board she used to sit, and maintained them when she assumed her post as DOE Secretary and began to direct policies that could have favored her own financial interests. Granholm eventually closed her position in the firm late in May 2021, after the House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into the apparent conflict of interest earlier that month.

The Proterra bankruptcy filing came weeks after Lordstown Motors — a company building electric pickup trucks — filed for bankruptcy protection and put itself up for sale. Other failed EV startups include Electric Last Mile Solutions and bus manufacturer Arrival, which both declared insolvency. Fisker Automotive went bankrupt twice. Its first EV venture went bankrupt in 2013, following problems with a battery supplier and losing 300 of the company’s $100,000 plug-in hybrid Karmas in a hurricane. Its second bankruptcy filing was on June 17, 2024, after months of cash spent rapidly trying to deliver its Ocean SUVs to U.S. and European customers and after it failed efforts to secure investments, including from Nissan.

Conclusion

“Clean or green” energy requires massive federal loan guarantees, and much of the funding has proven to be lost as company after company has filed for bankruptcy protection. The massive loans, particularly for electric school and transit buses, have resulted in poor equipment, much of which cannot be repaired due to company failure and bankruptcy. Range, reliability, and expenses of EV buses have turned out to be much different than advertised, idling many of them even as they transport passengers. EV buses also cost multiple times more than their diesel counterparts, and their performance is marred by expensive and frequent repairs, charging equipment costs, and much lower range than existing buses — factors that the market would quickly flesh out had it the ability to function.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #217: Musky Moo Moo

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the unfolding “constitutional crisis” in which President Trump and his administration carry out exactly what they campaigned on.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Solar Industry In Dire Straits Without Endless Subsidies

In its Short-Term Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is projecting 26 gigawatts of solar capacity to be added to the power grid this year and another 22 gigawatts of solar additions in 2026. That expected growth is down from the record 37 gigawatts of solar power capacity that was added in 2024 and may dwindle further as some analysts believe that solar power may face Trump administration policies that will stagnate project development or continue it at a slower pace. Like wind, solar is an intermittent technology operating only about 25% of the time because it needs the sun to shine to energize it. Also, like wind power, it needs backup power from coal, natural gas, or nuclear generators or stored energy from expensive batteries that climate activists and some politicians are pushing. The massive batteries do not generate energy; they store excess energy from wind, solar units, or other generation sources if excess power exists. Battery facilities in California and Arizona have also had fires, with one at a facility in Monterey, California, causing evacuations and raising concerns about air quality.

Similar to wind power, solar power is promoted by large federal subsidies and state mandates for renewable energy. Solar projects get a 30% investment tax credit from the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act — President Biden’s signature climate bill. That is, taxpayers essentially pay 30% of the capital costs for solar projects. According to EIA, federal support for renewable energy cost taxpayers upwards of $15.6 billion in FY 2022 — more than double the cost in 2016. With record additions in 2024, taxpayers are subsidizing solar power at even higher levels — a technology that can supply power roughly 25% of the time. On a per unit of production basis, its federal subsidies in FY 2022 cost $38.18 per megawatt hour — a subsidy value over 76 times greater than nuclear power received. While solar’s costs have dropped with its deployment over the last several decades, it still requires backup power, which adds costs for consumers — essentially a redundancy in capital expenditure made necessary by solar’s intermittency. According to EIA, its capital costs are 23% higher than the natural gas combined cycle, but its generating costs are 46% less after considering federal subsidies and fuel costs for natural gas.

Not only does solar power receive tax subsidies, but it has also garnered sizable federal loans, particularly during the Obama-Biden administration. Solar plants are touted to operate for around 25 years — half the time or less that fossil fuel or nuclear plants operate. The Ivanpah solar plant in California — touted to be the largest of its kind — shut down after ten years of operation. Obama’s Department of Energy (DOE) provided a $1.6 billion loan guarantee, and his Treasury Department provided a $535 million grant. The plant owners did not pay the usual credit subsidy cost (the expected default liability for the federal government) under the DOE section 1705 loan program. The $535 million grant under the Section 1603 program was to pay back part of the loan guaranteed at no charge by the DOE. The loan guarantee and grant were on top of the investment tax credit, the accelerated depreciation (an assumed plant life of five years), and a depreciation bonus of 50 percent in the first year that the plant received.

Furthermore, California utilities were forced to buy the power produced by Ivanpah due to the state’s “renewable portfolio standard.” The price the utilities were committed to paying for the project’s electricity was five times the going electricity rate, which was passed on to consumers. The Ivanpah plant was not only a financial boondoggle but an environmental disaster. It allegedly killed 6,000 birds a year and raised concerns about its impact on the habitat of the threatened desert tortoise. It destroyed desert habitats and numerous rare plant species. The Ivanpah solar plant is a good example of government waste that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is to flesh out.

Solar power also requires great swathes of land — far more than a traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plant —that must come from cutting down trees that absorb carbon dioxide or from farmland. In 2021, Iowa’s largest solar facility, the Wapello Solar project, began operation, covering 1000 acres, 900 of which had previously been used to grow row crops such as corn and soybeans. The Illinois crop budget estimated non-land costs of $815 per acre for corn in 2024. A 100-megawatt plant like Wapello cost about $155 million to build and $2.16 per megawatt hour to operate in 2024, which translates to a levelized cost of $47 per megawatt hour, based on cost numbers for solar from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Using this information, an Energy Institute blog comparing the profitability of corn vs. solar found that solar panels are not profitable without government subsidies. That is precisely what Warren Buffet told us years ago about wind power. Subsidies are supposed to be used to help get new technologies “off the ground.” As such, they should no longer be provided to wind and solar power, which have had decades to prove their worth. Today, wind and solar power represent about 16% of the nation’s electricity and less than 3% of the nation’s energy supply due to the enormous subsidies and state mandates forcing utilities to purchase their output.

Conclusion

President Trump has issued an executive order on wind energy, withdrawing U.S. offshore areas from leasing wind and reviewing the federal government’s leasing and permitting practices for wind energy. Little has been said about other renewable energy technologies, including solar power, except for geothermal, which is receiving favor because it can produce energy 24/7. Solar power produces energy less often than wind power, which has an average capacity factor of about 10 percentage points higher than solar.

Solar also has a lot of the same issues as wind power in that it is as unreliable as it is intermittent, requires backup power that is either redundant or an investment in expensive batteries, requires massive amounts of land compared to coal, natural gas, and nuclear-generating technologies; operates at a life that is half or less than half that of the traditional generating technologies; and requires large federal subsidies to be economical. These are just a few of its problems. Another major one is that China dominates solar manufacturing and polysilicon production due to its cheap coal-fired power. The United States imports most of its solar panels, many of which come from China or factories in other Asian countries that China supports to avoid U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels.


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