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

Senate Confirms American Energy Leaders Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin, and Doug Burgum

February 4, 2025 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON DC (2/4/25) – The U.S. Senate has confirmed three key nominees to serve in President Donald Trump’s administration, marking a significant step forward in advancing the administration’s energy and natural resource policies. As part of our American Energy Scorecard, the American Energy Alliance will score the confirmation votes for each nominee.  

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

“Today marks a pivotal moment in our efforts to unleash American energy and strengthen our nation’s energy economy. With the confirmation of Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin, and Doug Burgum, experienced and committed leaders now will be at the helm of critical agencies. Under their leadership, we will continue to ensure that the United States remains the world’s energy superpower, providing jobs, security, and economic growth for all Americans.

“For the past four years, the American Energy Alliance has worked to push back against the restrictive policies of the Biden administration. We are excited to see a new team in place that is focused on a comprehensive energy strategy—one that prioritizes affordable, reliable, and abundant energy for the American people. Our team has provided a Blueprint to ensure that these goals remain front and center throughout this administration, ensuring energy policy serves the needs of all Americans.”

Chris Wright Confirmed as Energy Secretary

On Monday, the Senate confirmed Chris Wright as the next Secretary of Energy. With a vote of 59-38, Wright, a seasoned executive in the fracking industry, secured broad bipartisan support, including seven Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with them. As Energy Secretary, Wright will lead the charge to ensure the United States remains a global energy leader and continues to expand its energy production capabilities.

Lee Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

Last Wednesday, the Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the 17th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin, who represented New York’s first congressional district in the House of Representatives, was approved with a strong bipartisan vote. He will now oversee the EPA’s efforts to safeguard the nation’s environment while balancing the need for energy production and economic growth. Three Democrats—Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ)—joined all 53 Republicans in confirming Zeldin.

Doug Burgum Confirmed as Interior Secretary

Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior. The former Governor of North Dakota, who was tapped by President Trump to drive the administration’s energy abundance agenda, received overwhelming Senate support with a 79-18 vote. More than half of Senate Democrats joined all 53 Republicans in backing Burgum’s nomination. As Interior Secretary, Burgum will lead the department’s efforts to expand domestic energy production, manage public lands, and ensure the development of the nation’s natural resources.

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: , , , , , ,

Democrats In California Attack Energy Producers Who Make Fire Fighting Possible

February 3, 2025 by Leave a Comment

Two Democratic legislators have introduced a bill allowing residents damaged by wildfire to sue oil and gas companies for producing products they say cause global warming. The same companies provide the fuel for the helicopters and planes needed to fight the fires.

Two Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation in California to allow residents who have damages from natural disasters to sue oil and gas companies. The proposed bill claims that the oil industry intentionally deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels, which they say appear to have intensified storms and wildfires and caused billions of dollars in damage in California. California would be the first U.S. state to allow such lawsuits if approved. According to supporters of the bill, these disasters have driven insurers to raise rates, limit coverage, or pull out entirely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters. Of course, there is no mention of the benefits of fossil fuels, including supplying life-saving heat in winter, air conditioning in summer, food on the table, and economic prosperity from supporting industrial activity.

In California, utility companies are liable for damages if their equipment starts a wildfire. Some believe the same idea should apply to oil and gas companies because the products they make available to the public when consumed by the public, emit carbon dioxide that produces global warming and climate change, which they allege leads to catastrophes such as those recently experienced in California. The proposed bill aims to alleviate the financial burdens on victims of these types of disasters and insurance companies by allowing them to sue the oil industry to recover their losses. It would also allow the state’s Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, created for homeowners who could not obtain insurance from the private sector, to sue for damages so the plan does not become insolvent. The plan is primarily funded by policies sold to customers, but insurers are currently required to pay into the fund if it is insolvent or to keep it from going insolvent.

The recent multiple fires that tore through sections of Los Angeles and burned more than 12,000 structures were labeled the most destructive in the modern history of the city of Los Angeles and estimated to be among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. California lawmakers voted to spend $2.5 billion to help rebuild the area. President Trump visited the devastation and indicated that the federal government would supply aid as long as California changes its voter ID laws and enacts water reforms.

Oil companies have already survived several climate lawsuits claiming that they have deceived the public regarding the risks of fossil fuels. More lawsuits from U.S. municipalities, eight states, and Washington, D.C., against oil and gas companies over their role in climate change are pending, including one filed by California more than a year ago. The civil lawsuit also seeks the creation of a fund — financed by the companies — to pay for recovery efforts following devastating storms and fires. Another blue state, New York, has a new law mandating that the largest fossil fuel companies deemed responsible for carbon dioxide emissions contribute $3 billion annually to a climate mitigation fund for the next 25 years. The NY legislation will increase consumer energy costs by imposing a punitive fee on fossil fuels that supply roughly 80% of U.S. energy needs.

California is trying to convince insurers to continue doing business in the state by giving them more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for issuing more policies in high-risk areas. Seven of the top 12 insurance companies doing business in California in 2023 either paused or restricted new business in the state after assessing that the state was ill-prepared to prevent and respond to wildfires and that its cap on rates exposed the companies to too much risk, given those conditions. The state now allows insurers to consider climate change when setting their prices and will soon allow them to pass on reinsurance costs to California consumers.

California Misplaces Its Priorities

As Los Angeles burned from the wildfires, Newsom’s administration was working on a mission to protect a supposedly endangered form of trout. The state employs about 5,300 workers in conservation and wildlife protection vs. 570 in the fire agency’s wildland management — a 9 to 1 dichotomy. Weeks before the fires, the 110-year-old Santa Cruz Wharf collapsed into the ocean because the California Coastal Commission had delayed repairs so that they would not interfere with seagulls’ mating season. In 2017, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife implemented a policy requiring owners whose pets or livestock have been attacked by mountain lions first to try nonlethal means of deterrence. Only after the third attack could they obtain a permit to kill the predator.

California chose to protect the 3-inch delta smelts rather than allowing water available to farmers and for other uses. According to the Wall Street Journal, “runoff from mountains in Northern California feeds into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is connected to the San Francisco Bay. Pumps at the south push water to farms in California’s Central Valley and Southern California cities — but because smelt sometimes gets trapped in the pumps, federal and state governments have restricted how hard they can run,” allowing billions of gallons of water to flow into the Pacific Ocean. The smelt population, however, has continued to decline due to nonnative predator fish and other delta dwellers that outcompete it for food. The smelt appeared to have gone extinct in 2020, but in 2021, more than 12,000 smelts were released into the delta, perpetuating the excuse to limit water flows to farmers.

These problems began with the passage of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), a federal law championed by green NGOs which began to shift the focus of the federal and state water management projects from moving water from north to south to dumping water into the Pacific in the Northern part of the state.

Conclusion

California lawmakers are considering allowing residents affected by natural disasters to sue oil companies under the guise that they have not exposed the risks of fossil fuels to climate change. This is a continuation of blaming everyone but themselves for the devastating wildfires that have hit the L.A. area. It appears that California has continually put protecting animals ahead of humans as a species of supposedly endangered trout was being studied for protection by the Newsom administration, which employs many more workers in conservation and wildlife protection than in wildland management during the L.A. wildfires. The state’s top-heavy government permitting system also dissuades residents from clearing their land of fire-prone brush buildup.  And, while the fires burned, the fire hydrants in the affected area of L.A. were empty, as were the reservoirs, so the wildfires could not be easily contained. President Trump has repeatedly argued that California officials could have boosted water flow to Los Angeles from the northern part of the state by pumping more of the resource. Two Democrat legislators, however, prefer to sue oil and gas companies that provide the fuel for the helicopters and planes that are needed to fight the fires.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #215: The Swifty Thing is Unconscionable

January 31, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna cover the greatest opening week of all time and the latest shake ups Trump World is bringing to the world of energy.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , ,

The Continued Slowdown in EV Sales

January 30, 2025 by Leave a Comment

In August, we noted that the growth in EVs had greatly slowed. But that only looked at sales data through July.  But now we have full-year sales data for 2024, and the slowdown doesn’t look better.

In August, we noted that battery electric plus plug-in hybrid vehicle sales had dramatically increased in recent years. In 2017, these vehicles only made up 1.1% of total light-duty vehicle sales, but those sales dramatically increased until 2023, when they made up 9.4% of light-duty vehicle sales.

We also noted that sales had apparently leveled off, but at the time, we didn’t have full-year sales data for 2024. Now we do, and the picture for EV sales data doesn’t look any better. For 2024, battery electric plus plug-in hybrid vehicles accounted for 9.9% of light-duty vehicle sales.

Source: Argonne National Laboratory

As a percentage of light-duty vehicle sales, EV sales increased by 109% in 2021, 55% in 2022, 39% in 2023, and EV sales only increased by 5% in 2024. EV sales grew, but not at a rate that suggests EVs will dominate light-duty vehicle sales.

In a world where consumers’ preferences reigned, this slowdown in EV sales wouldn’t matter. However, because the Biden administration tried to mandate EVs, EV sales really matter (at least until the Trump administration can end Biden’s EV mandates).  The Biden-Harris administration tried to mandate EV sales in multiple ways, but maybe the most important is EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. Below are EPA’s projected penetration rates of battery-electric vehicles plus plug-in hybrids (Table 75 here). It shows that by 2027, if companies complied with the rule, it would require that battery electric and plug-in hybrids make up 32% of all light-duty vehicle sales and, by 2032, 68% of all light-duty vehicle sales.

Source: EPA

The graphic below shows one possible path for EVs to reach 32% of sales by 2027—an increase in EV sales of 36% every year from 2023 to 2027.  Now we have the full-year sales data for 2024; EV sales only grew by 0.5%—nowhere close to the needed 36%.

Source: Data sourced from Argonne National Laboratory & EPA

There was never a legitimate path to achieve Biden’s EV mandate without forcing millions of American families to buy EVs when they would prefer gas-powered vehicles.  Now is the time for the Trump administration to roll back the mandate and allow American families to buy the vehicles that work best for their situations, not the vehicles environmental activists want to force people to buy.

*This piece was originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Key Votes YES on Energy Policy Nominees

January 29, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance supports the nominations of Lee Zeldin for EPA Administrator, Doug Burgum for Secretary of the Interior, and Chris Wright for Secretary of Energy. All of these leaders share a vision for energy dominance and economic growth. Their dedication to prioritizing domestic energy production and addressing regulatory burdens will serve to spur job creation and strengthen our economy. 

One of the largest hurdles to affordable, reliable energy is our burdensome regulatory framework. Lee Zeldin understands the challenges that come with trying to innovate in a space that discourages practical solutions. His leadership at the EPA will bring the fresh perspective that is so desperately needed.

With his expertise and leadership, Chris Wright is the right person for the job. Over the past decade, Wright has led the way making the moral case for energy development, recognizing the link between economic growth and environmental progress. He is a champion for reliable, affordable energy and the role it plays in ensuring American prosperity and improving people’s lives in the developing world. His approach challenges conventional thinking while remaining firmly rooted in real-world solutions.

Doug Burgum hails from one of the largest energy-producing states in the country and knows what it takes to get the job done. As Governor of North Dakota, he has overseen one of America’s great energy growth stories and his perspective will be valuable as we work to grow American energy production. 

A YES vote on each of these nominations is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include these votes it in its American Energy Scorecard.

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

Global Energy Markets Respond To Trump’s Energy First Agenda

January 28, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its January Short-Term Energy Outlook, is forecasting global oil prices (Brent crude oil) in 2025 to average $74 per barrel, falling to $66 per barrel in 2026. That is down from an average of $81 per barrel in 2024, or 8% lower in 2025 and 11% lower in 2026. The EIA forecast contrasts with Citibank’s lower price forecast for this year of $67 a barrel, which it raised from a previous forecast of $62 per barrel due to geopolitical risks centered on Russia and Iran. According to Reuters, Citi said the timing and nature of President Trump’s actions regarding Iran and Russia could be defining features of the oil market and pricing during 2025. The lower oil price forecasts result in lower expected gasoline prices, which EIA sees averaging $3.00 per gallon in 2026. Under Citi’s oil price forecast, that level will be reached sooner.

The lower expected oil price forecast is due to the expectation that global oil production will grow more than global oil demand. EIA expects strong growth in oil production outside of OPEC+ and an increase in oil production by OPEC+, but less than the group stated in its most recent production target to avoid significant inventory builds. This results in a significant surplus of oil production capacity in OPEC, as depicted in the graph below.

Source: EIA

Growth in global oil production over the last two years has been led primarily by countries in North and South America, especially the United States, Canada, Guyana, and Brazil, which have increased their total liquid production by 1.1 million barrels per day in 2024. EIA expects that they will increase their production by an additional 1.0 million barrels per day in 2025 and 0.9 million barrels per day in 2026. EIA expects total global production of liquid fuels to increase by 1.8 million barrels per day in 2025 and 1.5 million barrels per day in 2026. Argentina is also a nation to watch, as its oil production is increasing rapidly under business-friendly President Javier Milei. They are soon expected to surpass Colombia in production in South America.

Source: EIA

EIA expects global oil consumption growth to be less than the pre-pandemic trend. Global consumption of liquid fuels is expected to increase by 1.3 million barrels per day in 2025 and 1.1 million barrels per day in 2026, driven by consumption growth in non-OECD countries, particularly in Asia, where India is now expected to be the leading source of global oil demand growth. Citi’s lower oil price forecast in 2025 than EIA’s forecast is based on an oil supply surplus of 0.8 million barrels per day, larger than EIA’s expected surplus of 0.5 million barrels per day. China is reducing some of its demand for oil by mandating purchases of electric vehicles, for which they control global supply chains.

Source: EIA 

EIA expects U.S. oil production to increase to 13.5 million barrels per day in 2025, higher than the record in 2024 of 13.2 million barrels per day, and then average 13.6 million barrels per day in 2026 as oil operators slow production due to lower expected oil prices. Operators are expected to reduce the number of active drilling rigs as oil prices fall. EIA expects WTI prices to average $62 per barrel in 2026, down from $70 per barrel in 2025. The Permian region’s share of U.S. oil production is expected to continue to increase, accounting for more than 50% of all U.S. oil production in 2026. This increase is expected to be offset by contraction in other regions’ production.

Uncertainty Over OPEC+ Oil Production 

OPEC+ producers agreed to their first round of reduced oil production targets and additional voluntary production cuts in April 2023 due to growing global oil inventories and falling oil prices that year. The latest agreement in December 2024 shifted the timeline for relaxing some of these cuts into 2026. Based on the expectation that oil production will continue to grow outside of OPEC+, it is uncertain whether OPEC+ members will continue adhering to lower production targets while countries outside of the group increase production and put downward pressure on oil prices. If the production cuts see diminishing returns relative to their impacts on oil prices and export revenue, the potential for dissent within OPEC+ could increase, leading some members to increase production unilaterally.

Geopolitical instability continues to pose a risk to oil production from various OPEC+ nations. Although oil shipments from the Middle East have not been directly impacted by conflict so far, ongoing tensions and recent unrest in Syria could escalate the threat to supply. Furthermore, upcoming policy actions by G7 countries, particularly concerning sanctions on OPEC+ members like Russia — such as the latest sanctions imposed — introduce additional unpredictability into the OPEC+ outlook.

Conclusion

The EIA and Citibank are both forecasting lower oil prices this year, resulting in lower gasoline prices. EIA expects oil production from non-OPEC and OPEC+ producers to increase in 2025 and 2026 and outpace demand increases, resulting in lower prices. Citi expects a larger supply glut than does EIA in 2025, resulting in a lower oil price forecast. There are significant uncertainties embedded in both forecasts from the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war with the associated sanctions that could easily change the forecast, which is why EIA updates its short-term forecast monthly.

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

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

IER Unveils Blueprint For Unleashing American Energy

January 23, 2025 by Leave a Comment

As the Trump administration settles into a their first week in office the Institute for Energy Research, AEA’s sister organization, released The American Energy Blueprint. This report serves as a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to guide the new Trump administration’s approach to energy policy.

The American Energy Blueprint outlines key reforms in areas such as federal land and water use, expanding consumer choice, reducing subsidies, curbing government spending and taxation, streamlining regulations, and modernizing the permitting process.

The full Blueprint is available for download here, and can be viewed below:

Federal Lands and Waters

The Biden administration launched an unprecedented attack on energy development on federal lands. From restricting land use to slowing or halting permitting approvals and raising fees, the administration did seemingly everything to make energy development on federal lands more difficult and more expensive as part of its pledge to “end fossil fuels.” The Trump administration should take swift action to reverse these actions and Congress should update statutes to ensure such abuse cannot happen again in the future.

Source: Bureau of Land Management

Administrative Actions:

  • Reverse restrictive Biden actions in ANWR and NPR-A, and revoke other Alaska land-use limitations on energy and minerals. Alaska is over twice the size of Texas; two-thirds of it is federally owned and 86% of it is inaccessible by road.
  • Reverse the illegal denial of an access road to Alaska’s Ambler Mining District, one of the U.S.’s most potentially prolific sources of valuable rare earth minerals.
  • Bureau of Ocean Energy Management should proceed with Lease Sale 262 in 2025, as planned, and create a new, more comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five-year leasing program, including at least two lease sales per year in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). With the current OCS five-year leasing program under litigation, the administration should request a voluntary remand to resolve all pending petitions.
  • Release a new offshore leasing plan.
  • Approve permits for new mines.
  • Executive order to reconsider all Biden administration decisions on land withdrawals from energy or mining leasing.
  • Reverse the Biden actions requiring higher fees and costs for production in certain areas.
  • Review, reverse, and shrink Biden Obama-era national monument designations.

Additional resources from IER:

Legislative Actions:

  • Turn mismanaged federal lands over to the states and look for opportunities to privatize them.
  • Antiquities Act reform: Require monument designations to be approved by Congress, not by a unilateral presidential act.
  • Repeal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provisions increasing costs of production on federal lands.

Additional resources from IER:

Consumer Choice

The American people have the right to choose the consumer products that best fit their needs and budgets. However, the Biden administration aggressively sought to restrict the types of durable goods, such as cars and appliances, that are available for sale. This burdens consumers with higher costs and often forces them to purchase inferior products. The new administration must quickly withdraw these rules that unlawfully restrict consumer choice, while Congress should work diligently to repeal or reform the underlying legislation that enabled the abusive rulemaking.

Source: The American Action Forum

Administrative Actions:

  • Reconsider and repeal the EPA’s tailpipe emissions rules for all vehicle classes.
  • Reconsider and repeal the 2027-2032 CAFE standards.
  • Revoke the California waiver: revoke the ACC I waiver and deny the ACC 2 waiver (or CRA).
  • Deny or withdraw other unlawful California waivers that have been requested or granted (trains, trucks).
  • Reconsider the Biden administration’s excessive appliance standards on gas stoves, home heating, furnaces, dishwashers, and other appliances. Consider creating new product classes to ensure that important appliance features have not been lost through the imposition of over-strict regulations.
  • Executive Order: Ban any agency action that prohibits or substantially limits energy by targeting any one particular source, absent direction from Congress.

Additional Resources From IER:

Legislative Actions:

  • Repeal the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.
  • Repeal the Renewable Fuel Standards.
  • Repeal Appliance Efficiency Standards.

Additional Resources From IER:

Subsidies and Spending

The Biden administration, with the help of Congress, engaged in an unprecedented spending binge in the energy policy space. Subsidies were created en masse for favored products and energy sources, slush funds were created to subsidize left-wing activism, spending prioritized political activism over scientific research, and tax rules were bent to hand out even more money than Congress authorized. These actions are exploding deficits and distorting energy markets, creating a death spiral of subsidization that threatens their resiliency. Where possible, the administration should halt this spending by agency action, and Congress must follow up by repealing the trillions of dollars of subsidies that were passed, particularly in the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.

Administrative Actions: 

  • Replace Treasury guidance for IRA credits to enforce the content requirements passed by Congress.
  • Halt and review all of the Department of Energy loan programs.
  • Revoke and rescind the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
  • Halt funding for Department of Energy awards that were not “awarded” by the inauguration.
  • Halt all climate bank contributions.
  • Halt green group slush funds and environmental justice initiatives that were created during the last administration.
  • End the American Climate Corps.
  • Review all power purchasing agreements the federal government has negotiated under the Biden administration and review to ensure federal facilities are not paying above market rates.
  • Executive order: Provide guidance on research funding. RCP 8.5 or similar extreme scenarios should not be used in projects that receive federal research dollars.
  • Executive order: All federally funded research must be made available free to the public and underlying data and models must be made available for review.
  • Review Treasury and IRS guidance on repowering rules for renewable tax credits.
  • Eliminate the Department of Energy Clean Energy Corps and other agency Climate Corps initiatives (American Climate Corps).
  • Conduct an audit and oversight of money distributed by the Biden administration to political and activist groups.
  • Direct the Energy Information Administration to update and publish the discontinued report: Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy.

Additional Resources From IER:

Legislative Actions: 

  • Repeal Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits.
  • Provide guidance to the Federal Reserve to clarify that integrating climate scenarios into their analysis is outside of the Institution’s mandate.
  • Clawback the IIJA and Chips and Science spending (EV charging, research spending, etc).

Additional Resources From IER:

Taxes and Regulation

The Biden administration regularly bragged about taking an “all-of-government” approach to controlling energy policy through every possible regulatory avenue. The new administration must take a similar “all-of-government” approach to reversing the legacy of damage and market distortion.

Source: QuantGov

Administrative Actions:

  • Withdraw from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  • Withdraw the EPA’s methane rule.
  • Withdraw the EPA’s power plant rules.
  • Provide Jones Act waivers for the transportation of liquified natural gas.
  • Review the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (especially ozone).
  • Ensure that the global effects of a rule, regulation, or action are reported separately from its domestic costs and benefits.
  • Revoke Executive Order 14030 of May 20, 2021, on climate-related financial risk.
  • Make clear that the SEC, Treasury, Comptroller of Currency, CFTC, or any other financial regulator may not take action to discriminate against the production or use of any energy source, or take other climate-related actions, without express direction from Congress.
  • Revoke all executive orders establishing an environmental justice framework in the federal government.
  • Withdraw Biden administration’s social cost of carbon.
    • Or reform to use a 7% discount rate.
  • Review and reconsider the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide emissions.
  • Withdraw Biden CEQ NEPA regulations.
  • Take regulatory action to match the Waters of United States definition outlined in the Sackett decision.
  • Executive order directing all agencies to eliminate any environmental justice requirements from any regulations, contract tendering, employment, etc.
  • Executive order eliminating all energy and climate mandates in federal procurement and contracting.
  • Repeal the EPA’s “good neighbor” rule that threatens energy infrastructure. Since the rule is currently under litigation, it should be suspended while the agency works to repeal it.
  • Withdraw Biden A-4 circular update.
  • Withdraw from Biden methane pledge.
  • Review endangerment findings for CO2.
  • Withdraw the Department of Labor rule on ESG investing with retirement accounts.
  • Executive order: Review EPA greenhouse gas reporting program.
  • Review the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s “Green Guide” classification of carbon credits.
  • Executive order: Suspend all agency climate action plans pending reviews and cost-benefit analysis.
  • Exempt crude oil, natural gas, and energy-intensive critical supply chain inputs from across-the-board tariffs to maintain the administration’s goal of preserving American energy dominance.
  • Extend all existing petitions and expedite any future petitions for Section 232 tariff exclusions for products critical to the oil and natural gas industry that cannot be sourced domestically to meet the required procurement specifications.

Additional Resources From IER:

Legislative Actions:

  • Repeal the methane tax.
  • Pass the REINS Act.
  • Reform NRC, and appoint commissioners, so that new nuclear generation has a regulatory path consistent with development, not obstruction.
  • Reduce the corporate tax rate below 20%.
  • FOIA reform:
    • Reform the Foreseeable Harm Standard – Federal agencies often cite the “deliberative process” privilege to redact substantial information from public records. Congress can improve this standard by mandating that agencies consider specific factors when evaluating potential harm from disclosure.
    • Ensure systematic preservation and searches of text messages, emails, calendars, and other communications.
    • Subject government contractors to FOIA when they are engaged in public functions.
    • Prevent infinite delays by consults.

Additional resources from IER:

Permitting Reform

It is far too expensive and time-consuming to build just about anything in America, but energy infrastructure and development are particularly difficult. The Biden administration exacerbated this by throwing up every administrative hurdle they could conceive. Reversing the Biden administration’s actions is immediately necessary, but Congress must also undertake some serious work to reform the statutes that govern the permitting process.

Source: Office of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy

Administrative Actions: 

  • Appoint FERC commissioners that will withdraw the proposed pipeline rule and transmission rule.
  • Resume permitting approvals for LNG exports.
  • The Army Corps of Engineers should complete its environmental review for the Line 5 project in Michigan and grant the project a permit to proceed.
  • Review permitting requirements for new and expanding refineries.
  • Reform the water permitting process to make clear that state input cannot be an automatic veto.

Additional Resources From IER:

Legislative Actions: 

  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reform:
    • Repeal the Biden administration’s NEPA Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemakings and replace them with updated guidance consistent with economic growth and the rule of law.
    • Recognize that the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) does not have the statutory authority to create binding NEPA regulations for other federal agencies.
      • Rescind CEQ’s NEPA regulations wholesale and rely on the individual agencies to individually promulgate NEPA regulations as may be required.
    • The consideration of the Social Cost of Carbon analysis is inappropriate and should not be used in the development of environmental documents under NEPA.
    • Remove controlled burns on federal lands from the list of major federal actions for NEPA.
  • Endangered Species Act (ESA) reform:
    • Clarify that habitat modification is not the “taking” of a species under the ESA. The ESA defines “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” That should be the definition and not adverse habitat modification. ESA should be for species protection, not to control land use.
    • The Fish and Wildlife Service should repeal the FWS-NMFS regulations on “foreseeable future” (Section 4), “critical habitat” (Section 7), and the blanket application of the Section 4(d) rule.
  • Eliminate the need for cross-border permitting for pipelines.
  • Litigation reform (standing, payment of court fees).
  • Review permitting requirements for new/expanding refineries.
  • Reform the water permitting process to make clear state input cannot be an automatic veto.
  • Revoke Interior Secretary Order 3398 reinstating American Energy Dominance as a national goal.

Additional Resources From IER:

Conclusion

IER’s recommendations are grounded in several core principles:

Free Markets: History has demonstrated that private property rights, market competition, and the rule of law are essential to providing affordable energy, enhancing living standards, and fostering a cleaner environment.

Objective Science: Public policy, especially in the realm of environmental issues, should be driven by objective, evidence-based science, rather than emotional appeals or speculative scenarios that often lead to counterproductive government interventions.

Public Policy Tradeoffs: Policies that aim to address market failures in the energy sector must also account for the potential for government failure. It is critical to recognize that government actions, influenced by politics and bureaucracy, rarely mirror the idealized outcomes envisioned by policy advocates.

Efficient Outcomes: Policy decisions should consider the interests of energy consumers, producers, and taxpayers in a balanced and efficient manner, seeking outcomes that benefit all stakeholders.

Impartial and Unbiased: Government policies should be transparent, simple, and technology-neutral. This approach will encourage investment in the energy sector and drive innovation

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

The Unregulated Podcast #214: The Golden Age: Episode 1

January 23, 2025 by Leave a Comment

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the Trump administration’s busy first week and the subsequent shake-ups happening in the world of energy.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

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

California Struggling Under Newsom’s EV Mandate

January 22, 2025 by Leave a Comment

The wildfires in Los Angeles have made people realize that electric vehicles (EVs) are not reliable because of the inability to charge EVs during a power outage. Power outages have resulted from high winds, and L.A.’s wildfires have magnified the grid destruction. If your only vehicle is electric and only charged to a fraction of the battery’s range when evacuation orders come, you may be in serious trouble getting to a safe destination, as Californians are now figuring out. Evacuees can expect EV stations to have massive lines and delays and may not even have power if the electric grid cannot supply it. Furthermore, power companies can turn off their power to avoid sparking a fire and legal liability. None of this is the case with gasoline-powered cars, whose sales Governor Newsom is totally outlawing by 2035 with increasing EV sales mandates beginning next year.

If Not Electric Vehicles, Then What

As EV owners are finding out, electric vehicles require a “lifestyle change,” which includes setting up a home charger that may require an electrical upgrade, calculating routes for longer distance travel to find where charging is available, and searching for working public chargers when charging stations are jammed or chargers are inoperable, which is often happening.

Many Californians, still environmentally conscious and burdened by the state’s high gas prices, are turning to hybrid vehicles. According to automobile data company Edmunds, hybrid sales were up 63% in 2023 and 29% in 2024, to 1.8 million vehicles. For the same years, EV sales were up a lower amount—34% and 13%, respectively, to 1.2 million vehicles—and down from a 45% growth rate in 2022.

Most big auto companies are turning their focus to hybrids. Ford has slowed its EV rollouts in favor of hybrid vehicles. Nearly 25% of Ford F-150 pickup sales are hybrids. Hyundai, whose Ioniq 5 and other mid-priced electric cars are selling well, recently introduced the Hyundai Way program that offers an array of powertrains emphasizing hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Hyundai hybrid sales were up 46% in 2024, while EV sales rose at a lower rate—28%. Auto companies predict faster EV growth in the future as drivers become more comfortable with EV infrastructure, but, in the meantime, they are meeting consumer demand for hybrids.

New hybrid models are coming online in 2025, both traditional hybrids and plug-ins. Both types combine a small car battery with an internal combustion engine, achieving better gasoline mileage under certain traveling conditions. A traditional hybrid does not need to be plugged in because it uses a gasoline engine to recharge. A plug-in hybrid has a larger battery—typically 30 to 50 miles in range—and can be charged overnight with a regular 110-volt home outlet. It can run solely on the battery until depleted, and the combustion engine takes over, extending the driving range using gasoline.

Other Issues Come with Politically Acceptable Electric Infrastructure

How electricity is generated to fuel electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids is also an issue. Newsom has increased California mandates for “green energy,” much of which is weather-driven and intermittent wind and solar power, which needs as backup expensive but politically favored storage batteries. Recently, a fire broke out at a battery storage facility in Monterey County that the company claims is the largest in the world, requiring the county sheriff to order evacuation and closure of surrounding streets. The storage facility, completed in 2023, stores 750 megawatts of excess generation when it is available. The energy from the storage battery is released at a later time when the sun is not shining, and the wind is not blowing. In 2021, the battery complex also suffered damage from a malfunctioning heat detector, and in 2022, a small fire broke out at an adjoining battery plant owned by Pacific Gas & Electric.

Clearly, safety is an issue with three storage battery fires in three years. Those concerns fueled a ballot measure last year in Morro Bay to block Vistra, the battery company, from getting local permits to construct a battery facility near a power plant. Despite the measure passing in November, the project is going through a fast-tracked California permitting process because it is politically favored.

Conclusion

Wildfires and power outages in Los Angeles have made Californians think twice about owning a full-fledged electric vehicle because they are worried about the ability to fully charge their vehicles amidst high winds and wildfires and the ability to evacuate if their electric vehicle is not fully charged. Instead, they are looking for hybrid vehicles like many other Americans. U.S. hybrid sales are up more than EV sales, as they allow drivers flexibility in fuel choice while allowing the EV infrastructure to develop. Automakers are also focusing on hybrids, with more hybrid models coming out in 2025.

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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

President Trump Delivers A Whirlwind Of Day One Actions Unleashing American Energy

January 21, 2025 by Leave a Comment

President Trump signed 200 executive orders on his first day in office–some in front of his many supporters in the Capital One Arena and others during a press conference in the Oval Office.  He is mandating that the federal workforce return to their offices rather than working from home or other remote facilities and begin work on his agenda, in some cases, providing specific dates for reporting back on progress. His first-day executive orders included many on energy, including declaring a national energy emergency, opening Alaska to energy development that his predecessor had precluded, revoking Biden’s electric vehicle goals, any reviewing onshore and offshore wind energy, and withdrawing the United States from the U.N. Paris Accord that fueled much of Biden’s climate agenda. President Trump rightly wants energy markets to be allowed to work and consumers to decide what vehicle, appliance, or heating source is best for their needs.

Executive Order Declaring a National Energy Emergency

President Trump declared a ‘national energy emergency’ to bolster domestic fossil fuel production and reduce energy costs. This initiative is part of his administration’s agenda to overturn policies that prioritized green energy above more affordable and reliable alternatives. The national energy emergency will allow Trump to use executive powers to roll back Biden’s regulations, develop new energy infrastructure, and lower consumer energy prices. By declaring an emergency, the government can use special powers, such as the Defense Production Act, to speed up the production and distribution of energy, prioritizing energy projects and resources. This will help projects meet rapidly increasing electricity demand, which is being made worse by policies promoting intermittent renewable energy, which is leading to skyrocketing electricity rates in places such as California.

Alaska’s Executive Order

This executive order supports further progress on the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project, removes resource restrictions within the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPR-A) and other parts of the state, protects Alaskans’ hunting and trapping rights on federal lands, restores unlawfully canceled oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), advances the Ambler Access Project and the King Cove Road allowing residents access to medical care, revokes Biden administration regulations that imposed the 2001 Roadless Rule on Alaska and removes hurdles preventing Alaska Native people from receiving the lands they are due.

Executive Order to Cut Environmental Regulations

President Trump signed an executive order focused on reducing regulatory burdens, particularly those related to electric vehicles and household efficiency standards. The order seeks to streamline the approval process for energy projects and eliminate what the administration views as unnecessary red tape. The order lifts the moratorium on new licenses to export liquefied natural gas (LNG), directing the U.S. Department of Energy to resume processing applications for new LNG export permits, reversing the pause implemented by former President Biden in early 2024.

Executive Order to Withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement

President Trump signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which will relieve the United States from the international climate commitments that the Biden administration used to support its climate agenda that are economically burdensome. He noted that U.S. citizens bear much of the cost and burden of the agreement while China and others are free to produce energy unencumbered by U.N. strictures. The withdrawal process will take one year.

Executive Order on Wind Energy

President Trump’s executive order on wind energy, titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of The Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,” deals with both offshore and onshore wind on federal lands and waters. President Trump ordered all federal agencies to immediately assess “the environmental impact of onshore and offshore wind projects upon wildlife, including, but not limited to, birds and marine mammals.” Under the Biden Administration, agencies were ordered to speed up the deployment of wind projects on federal lands and waters, and fees were reduced by as much as 80% for using federal lands for such purposes. 

It also addressed “the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns, effects on energy costs for Americans –- especially those who can least afford it –and to ensure that the United States is able to maintain a robust fishing industry for future generations.” Offshore wind is extremely expensive—over 3 times the cost of onshore wind and over double the cost of gas combined cycle technology. Further, these cost estimates do not account for the need for backup power when the wind does not blow. The politically preferred backup technology is very expensive and huge batteries, whose facilities have caught on fire in California and Arizona.

Existing leases are not affected outright, but they are under review. The order states that the “Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Attorney General, as needed, shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

The executive order would halt the development of the controversial 1,200-megawatt Lava Ridge wind project in Idaho. The project, slated to be built on federal land near the Minidoka National Historic Site, has fierce opposition from both the government and the Japanese-American community in Idaho. The project spans 104,000 acres and includes 241 turbines with a maximum height of 660 feet. Opponents are concerned about its effects on recreation, ranching, wildlife, and the preservation of Minidoka National Historic Site—a site of a former incarceration camp for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Conclusion

President Trump had a very busy day on January 20, 2025, for his inauguration festivities and to begin reversing the disastrous energy policies of the Biden administration. He issued 200 executive orders, many geared toward increasing affordable and reliable energy for American consumers and allowing them to choose the vehicle and the appliances that best support their needs. President Trump recognizes that the best path forward is to allow markets to determine the most economical, efficient, and reliable energy sources for American consumers and businesses. Many Biden policies that need to be overturned will not be as easy as writing an executive order. Still, his administration is well on its way toward the goal with the right direction clearly outlined in his 200 executive orders. The new president managed to accomplish this after his inauguration at noon, signing many executive orders at the Capitol One Arena, where inaugural celebrants were gathered after extreme cold forced the first indoor inaugural since Ronald Reagan’s second one in 1985.

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

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