• Stay up to date on all things energy by visiting the TEA Newsroom.
• America needs Affordable, Reliable, Clean energy security.
• Biden admin proposes to restrict future coal mining in North Dakota.
• The real green energy transition: Auto maker layoffs.
• Utilities finding new ways to educate customers about natural gas.
• 60% of Americans think climate change is driving up their energy bills.
• U.S. wind and solar on track to overtake coal this year.
• AI is about to boost power bills — who’ll take heat for that?
• Selection of Walz raises stakes for Harris on energy policy.
• Study: Net-zero plans threaten reliability in the Great Lakes region.

The issue: There is no more critical issue facing voters Nov. 5 than American energy.

And there is a clear difference between the two presidential candidates on which policies would be more beneficial to consumers. Republican and former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. J.D. Vance advocates for natural gas and oil as the means of powering our nation. Democrats Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to push their Green New Deal agenda even further.

Why it matters: In his previous administration Trump worked to unleash domestic energy, helping producers and consumers, along with strengthening our allied relationships.

Trump also pledged on Wednesday during a rally in North Carolina to slash energy and electricity prices by one-half within 12 months.

By contrast, Harris and Walz are talking about a vastly different, costly and perhaps dangerous direction.

Harris campaigned on banning fracking, seen here in a 2020 interview. Now she’s backpedaling from that stance fearing it is too extreme.

But as a U.S. senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a blueprint for transitioning the country to 100% clean energy within a decade. When she ran for president briefly in 2019, Harris unveiled a plan to spend $10 trillion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a goal of getting to a zero-emissions economy by 2045.

As governor of Minnesota, Walz led the state in adopting some of the strictest car pollution rules in the country and setting a clean electricity standard with a 2040 goal for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Consider:

• Trump previously said he’d repeal the energy tax credits enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act on his first day in office.
• The Trump platform includes canceling the electric vehicle mandate and cutting costly and burdensome regulations.
• It also mentions “making America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far.”
• The Harris/Walz’s campaign website makes no mention of any issues, including energy.

They have avoided news conferences and media interviews; so knowing what their agenda is at present is a bit difficult. But based on past performance, we know both Harris and Walz favor big government subsidies for green projects and are opposed to drilling for more natural gas and oil.

It’s no surprise then that a  number of environmental groups have endorsed Harris. Some U.S. energy producers, conversely, have pledged their support for Trump.

Bottom line: Trump is promising to slash electricity prices that increased under Biden and Harris. Harris is promising she won’t ban fracking. Who will voters trust on energy?

The issue: We are wasting tons of money chasing ‘green’ fantasies. This is so true as Author Bjorn Lomborg points out. And he advocates a strong change in policy direction.

Why it matters: Globally, we are already spending almost $2 trillion annually to try to force an energy transition. Over the past decade, solar and wind energy use have increased to their highest-ever levels.

But it hasn’t reduced hydrocarbons — on the contrary, we have added even more of them over the same time. The transition away from natural gas and oil isn’t happening despite what some in the media and the green-at-any-cost politicians would have you believe.

Noted energy expert Robert Bryce this week explores the wasteful “green” hydrogen subsidies in his latest piece. Their handouts amount to more than 9 times what’s given to solar and a whopping 1,900 times the amount given to nuclear.

Consider:

• A recent example of abject failure in the green movement is that of SunPower Corporation, a once-mighty solar panel company based in Richmond, that filed for bankruptcy last week. The huge California solar company lost billions, once the consumer incentives — that were set up by the government to lure more than 100,000 residents to purchase solar panels — were drastically reduced.
• Countless studies show that when societies add more renewable energy, most of it never replaces coal, natural gas or oil. It simply adds to energy consumption.
• Recent research shows that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit displaces any hydrocarbon.

Analysis in the United States shows that renewable energy subsidies simply lead to more overall energy being used. In other words, policies meant to boost green energy are actually leading to more emissions.

Talk about one step forward and two steps back and yet another example of the government, not the free market, picking winners and losers.

Bottom line: The world is spending trillions on green energy yet the demand for oil and gas continues to rise. We need a smarter approach – natural gas is more effective at reducing emissions and saving money.

The national average for a gallon of gasoline fell two cents over the past week, now at $3.43. The award for lowest average prices in the nation goes to Mississippi where drivers are paying $2.96. The average is highest in Hawaii at $4.66, just narrowly ahead of California which is crazy considering how much farther fuel has to travel to get to the Aloha State.

Nothing on the calendar next week, Congress still in recess!

“In the power sector, the majority of emissions reductions have been driven by natural gas. So renewables have played a role in emissions reductions, but the main driver has been natural gas.”

-Anne Bradbury, CEO of AXPC on Twitter/X.