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.

AEA Joins Coalition Urging Congress To End Inflation Reduction Act’s Subsidies

WASHINGTON DC (2/14/25) – This week the American Energy Alliance joined with over 50 free-market groups and organizations to urge Congress to scrap the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) Green New Deal provisions.

Our letter warns that IRA subsidies will push the U.S. away from reliable energy (natural gas, oil, and coal) toward unreliable sources (wind, solar), threatening grid stability and driving up costs.

The coalition makes clear that these policies undermine energy security, limit consumer choice—especially in car markets—and hit the poor hardest. With a price tag exceeding $1 trillion, our coalition calls for a full repeal of IRA’s “green” subsidies to restore affordability, reliability, and energy freedom.

The full text of the letter is available below.


Dear Members of Congress:

In 2022, President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through one of the most extreme pieces of legislation in recent memory: the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Not a single Republican in either the House or Senate supported this bill.

The IRA was a reconciliation bill that helped the political left advance its Green New Deal. Now, because Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress, they can now use the reconciliation process and other means to dismantle the “green” subsidies contained in the IRA.

The undersigned organizations strongly urge all legislators, regardless of party, to make it a priority to get rid of the IRA’s Green New Deal provisions. Many conservative policymakers have made undoing the Green New Deal a priority. This is impossible without undoing the IRA “green” subsidies, which are the heart of the Green New Deal.

The spotlight will be on Republicans and more specifically on whether they can come through for the American people by getting rid of these IRA subsidies. If the subsidies are not repealed in reconciliation, this will be a devastating result. It will be characterized as a major failure and an ominous sign for the 119th Congress, as well as a failure to advance President Donald Trump’s Unleashing American Energy agenda. Those characterizations would be fair.

This is a critical moment that will require Republicans and other legislators to overcome far left efforts to maintain the IRA and the Biden administration’s harmful anti-energy legacy. There have been recent reports of some Republicans wavering in their opposition to the IRA subsides. IRA boosters cynically predicted Republicans would change their tune on the IRA once money started flowing into their districts. It appears that may be happening. That is unacceptable and ignores the harm subsidies will cause to Americans, including those living in all congressional districts.

The IRA is filled with numerous subsidies that were designed to shift our country away from reliable electricity generation (coal and natural gas) to unreliable electricity sources (e.g. wind and solar). This comes at a time of concern about the reliability of the nation’s electricity grid, in large part because of misguided corporate welfare policies that undermine reliable baseload generation.

There are also IRA subsidies that work in conjunction with other policies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s de facto electric vehicle mandate, to kill off gas-powered vehicles – undermining the freedom of Americans to choose their cars.

These examples capture just some of the problems with the IRA “green” subsidies. In general, the subsidies will drive up prices, diminish grid reliability, compromise mobility, and disproportionately impact the poor. Not to mention, the subsidies are expected to cost over $1 trillion, and this may be a low-ball estimate.

There is another excuse for maintaining IRA subsidies that was predicted after the law’s passage. Some big businesses claim they made decisions relying on those subsidies. Any business that bet on the IRA subsidies continuing, especially given the wide opposition to the IRA, is a poorly led business. Congress needs to put the interests of the American people over the interests of wealthy special interests who are trying to keep their handouts flowing at the expense of taxpayers.

All IRA “green” subsidies should be in the sights of policymakers. They work together as a central plan to achieve a radical and harmful shift in how our country produces and uses electricity, among other things. Given that they work together to achieve this Green New Deal, they should be eliminated together to restore freedom and ensure our country can reliably and affordably meet its energy needs.

Our organizations believe that this is a pivotal moment for our country. Will we go down the path of the Green New Deal, as pushed by Biden and the far left, or will Republicans and common- sense legislators get our country back on course to meeting our energy needs now and in the future? This is what is at stake.

Therefore, our organizations again urge you to eliminate the IRA’s “green” subsidies. We are available to work with you to ensure that when Congress passes reconciliation legislation this year, these harmful subsidies are repealed. If there is such an outcome, then this would be a major victory for conservatives, and more importantly, for the nation.

Sincerely,

Thomas Pyle
President
American Energy Alliance

Daren Bakst
Director, Center for Energy and
Environment
Competitive Enterprise Institute

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Paul Teller
Executive Vice President
Advancing American Freedom

John Droz
Founder and Physicist
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

Amy O. Cooke
President, Board Chairman
Always On Energy Research

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Phil Kerpen
President
American Commitment

Hon. Jason Isaac
CEO
American Energy Institute

Myron Ebell
Chairman
American Lands Council

Margaret Byfield
Executive Director
American Stewards of Liberty

Richard Manning
President
Americans for Limited Government

Faith Burns
Energy Policy Fellow
Americans for Prosperity

Rea S. Hederman Jr.
Vice President of Policy
The Buckeye Institute

David T. Stevenson
Director, Center for Energy & Environment
Caesar Rodney Institute

Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy

Daniel J. Mitchell
President
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

John Hinderaker
President
Center of the American Experiment

Craig Rucker
President
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
(CFACT)

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.
President
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
Creation

Kristen A. Ullman
President
Eagle Forum

Craig Richardson
President
Energy & Environment Legal Institute
(E&E Legal)

Malon Wilkus
President
The Foundation Supporting Climate
Science

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Mark Krebs
Principal
Gas Analytics & Advocacy Services LLC
(GAAS)

Larry Hart
President
Hartco Strategies


Cameron Sholty
Executive Director
Heartland Impact

James Taylor
President
The Heartland Institute

Ryan Walker
Executive Vice President
Heritage Action for America

Mario H. Lopez
President
Hispanic Leadership Fund

Gabriella Hoffman
Director, Center for Energy & Conservation
Independent Women’s Voice

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
(ICSC)

Annette Olson
Chief Executive Officer
The John K. MacIver Institute for Public
Policy, Inc.

Jon Sanders
Director of the Center for Food, Power, and
Life
John Locke Foundation

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

Charles Moran
President
Log Cabin Republicans

Jason Hayes
Director of Energy and Environmental
Policy
Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Paul Craney
Executive Director
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union

Daniel C. Turner
Founder and Executive Director
Power the Future

Tim Barton
President
ProFamily Legislative Network by
Wallbuilders

Donna Jackson
Director of Membership Development
Project 21 Black Leadership Network

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH
President
Scientific Integrity Institute

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Jenny Beth Martin
Honorary Chairman
Tea Party Patriots Action

Greg Sindelar
Chief Executive Officer
Texas Public Policy Foundation

Derrick Max
President and CEO
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Frank Lasee
President
Truth in Energy and Climate

Todd Myers
Vice President for Research
Washington Policy Center

Carol Platt Liebau
President
Yankee Institute

Benjamin Zycher
Senior Fellow
American Enterprise Institute (affiliation for
identification purposes only)


The full text of the letter is available to download below.

Automakers Look to Pass Gambling Debts on to Taxpayers

WASHINGTON DC (2/12/25) – On the heels of President Trump’s announcement aimed at eliminating the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicle purchases, news broke last night that automakers have hit Capitol Hill to lobby against the tax credit’s termination. 

 AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement: 

“Automakers took a risk on electric vehicles that ultimately didn’t pay off, relying on government regulations and mandates to create a market that never materialized, as we predicted. When federal pressure failed to force consumers into unwanted products, the industry doubled down, trying to use California’s regulatory power to push EVs even harder.

“In the process, they ignored the interests of their workers, American consumers who ended up paying more for the cars they actually wanted, and their shareholders who expected returns. Now, they want American taxpayers to help cover their debts.

“These companies made their choice to partner with the government. It’s time they faced the consequences of putting politics ahead of the people.”


AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

Additional Background Resources From AEA:


For media inquiries please contact: 

[email protected]

Trump’s Energy Picks Already Acting To Unleash American Energy

Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Doug Burgum and Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright have advised their staff to institute President Trump’s energy dominance program. DOE Secretary Wright prioritizes expanding energy production rather than pursuing Biden’s net-zero climate policies, stating, “net-zero policies raise energy costs for American families and businesses, threaten the reliability of our energy system, and undermine our energy and national security.” DOI Secretary Burgum issued orders reversing Biden’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and Alaskan oil drilling bans, directing the review of monuments for energy potential, speeding up permitting of energy projects, and unwinding environmental protections that are burdensome. Burgum states, “we are committed to working collaboratively to unlock America’s full potential in energy dominance and economic development to make life more affordable for every American family while showing the world the power of America’s natural resources and innovation.” Their agencies will follow President Trump’s direction to eliminate at least 10 regulations for every new one introduced.

Energy Department Directive

Energy Secretary Chris Wright called energy “the essential ingredient that enables everything we do” and ordered changes to how the agency will approach home appliances, nuclear power, gas exports, and more. His order said the department would pursue plans President Trump has outlined to speed up energy permitting, strengthen grid resilience, expand nuclear power capacity, and refill the nation’s strategic oil stockpiles by resupplying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) — a crucial national security entity. President Biden used a substantial portion of the nation’s SPR to lower oil and gasoline prices before the midterm election 2022. During parts of Biden’s term, the SPR level was below half of its capacity, with much of the remaining oil a type that U.S. refineries no longer use. During Trump’s first term, a Democrat Congress denied him $3 billion to fill the reserve to capacity when oil sold at about $24 a barrel during Covid lockdowns.

Wright also ordered new attention be paid to the U.S. nuclear stockpile to meet Cold War-era waste cleanup commitments and modernize atomic weapons as a tool for peace. According to the order, Energy Department Research & Development (R&D) efforts will prioritize affordable, reliable, and secure energy technologies, including fossil fuels, advanced nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower. Wright also ordered a cost-benefit analysis for any new standards imposed that considers the upfront cost of purchasing new products and reflects actual cost savings for American families. The Energy Department will also exercise its legal authorities going forward to aid in approving and constructing new, reliable energy infrastructure.

Interior Department Directives

Interior is using President Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency to “immediately identify all emergency and legal authorities available” to promote energy development on federal land. Burgum plans to allow more land for energy development, which Biden had restricted or placed under conservation. Toward the end of his term, President Biden ordered 625 million acres of federal waters withdrawn from future oil and gas leasing, or more than 1/3 of the OCS, using authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. During Trump’s first administration, he tried to reverse similar actions but smaller actions by the Obama administration to protect offshore areas, though a court rejected Trump’s effort in 2019. The ruling was never contested at a higher court, and the incoming Biden Administration supported the court’s decision. Burgum also revoked a 2021 order that halted oil and gas activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and he reinstated a mandate from the first Trump administration to rewrite the land and energy management plan for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The Biden administration had taken multiple actions restricting vast areas in the Petroleum Reserve from petroleum development.

Burgum’s “Unleashing American Energy” order sets the stage for the Trump administration to reopen and potentially revise the public lands rule, the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, that the Biden administration finalized in May. Interior’s assistant secretaries are directed to develop “action plans” and to suggest “steps that, as appropriate, will be taken to suspend, revise, or rescind” a list of rules and orders, including the public lands rule that seeks to place conservation-only on par with energy development, grazing, and other multiple uses of bureau rangelands. DOI cannot just revoke the rule; instead, it can restart the rulemaking process by opening it up for new public comment and conducting an in-depth analysis that would result in a revised rule. Bureau of Land Management lands have long been managed for “multiple uses,” allowing for coexisting uses with many public benefits.

Under Burgum’s order, the Interior Department will have until February 18 to review 157 national monuments across 33 states for potential boundary revisions that could open areas to oil and natural gas drilling and mining. The order instructs assistant secretaries to “review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands, consistent with existing law,” listing the law that gives presidents the power to designate national monuments and withdraw them from mineral development. Presidents have used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish national monuments and their boundaries and some believe that that authority has been abused, wanting it to revert to Congress with the repeal of the Antiquities Act. Presidential authority to alter monument boundaries is uncertain and is being debated in court. Monument declarations have been banned by Congress in Wyoming and limited to 5,000 acres absent Congressional approval in Alaska.

Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, rich in coal, oil, gas, and uranium, are likely among the monuments under review. And so are the recently-designated Chuckwalla National Monument and Sattitla National Monument in California. California has more monuments than any other state, with more than 4 million acres likely under review. They include Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow, Carrizo Plain, Muir Woods, Devils Postpile, Cabrillo, Lava Beds, California Coastal, Sequoia NF, Cesar Chavez, Fort Ord, San Gabriel Mountains, Berryessa Snow Mountain, and Castle Mountains. The Carrizo Plain monument in central California has been the subject of previous attempts to open the land for oil and gas drilling, which has resulted in lawsuits and no new energy production.

Trump reduced the size of the two Utah monuments during his first term, calling them a “massive land grab,” and lifted fishing restrictions within a marine monument off the New England Coast to aid small business fishermen. A rules change approved by Trump allowed commercial fishing at the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument in the Atlantic Ocean, a nearly 5,000-square-mile area southeast of Cape Cod. It was the first time in a half-century that a president modified the size of designated monuments. Biden, however, reversed Trump’s actions on these three monuments during his term in office.

Conclusion

Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 by primarily using subsidies to encourage an expansion of renewable energy and electric vehicle deployment is no longer the American government’s goal. Instead, President Trump and his energy team’s goal is American energy dominance, which promotes energy development, national security, and lowers prices for the American people. According to Chris Wright, Trump has a “simple vision” that “energy is good and that we need more” domestically sourced energy. Producing more at home will create additional direct and induced jobs, and increasing supplies will benefit consumers.


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

The Unregulated Podcast #216: I Apologize for Nothing

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna catch up on another busy week in America’s golden age. Later, they are joined by Tyler O’Neil, the managing editor of The Daily Signal, for a discussion of his latest book The Woketopus, and where D.O.G.E. should look next.

Links:

Stay Connected With The Show:

Key Vote YES on H.R. 26

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 26 the Protecting American Energy Production Act.

The process of hydraulic fracturing is a key production process for oil and gas development. It should not be subject to arbitrary, unilateral restrictions from a presidential administration. Any restrictions must be determined through the full constitutional legislative process. This legislation ensures that Congress will have its say on any such restrictions.

A YES vote on H.R. 26 is a vote in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.