Estimates are that nations representing about half of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) are voting this year, with economies, immigration, and energy transition among the top issues. As the world’s third most populous nation and its largest single economy, the United States factors heavily on the global scene. What happens in the United States affects the rest of the world.
Decisions made this November in the United States are likely to influence energy policy for years—and this has been anything but a normal election year!
The near-miss assassination attempt on Republican nominee Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally temporarily boosted his numbers. But a week later, the current president and then-Democratic front runner Joe Biden bowed to pressure following his June 27 debate debacle and ceded his re-election run, recommending instead sitting Vice President Kamala Harris.
At this writing, while Harris has raised more than $100 million in campaign funds and has received verbal support from more than enough delegates to secure the nomination, the convention has yet to make that decision official. But the party’s platform will be only marginally influenced by the exact candidate, so this story will address the issues in that light.
Uniqueness of This Election
The last non-sitting former president to run for re-election was Grover Cleveland in 1892. Cleveland ran against Republican Benjamin Harrison for the second time after losing to him in 1888. In the earlier race, Cleveland narrowly won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote by a wide margin. Had Biden not decided to bow out, 2024 would have been the second time two oval office veterans ran against each other.
Due to the gap between his terms, Cleveland is listed as the 22nd and 24th presidents. If reelected, Trump would be the 45th and 47th.
On the other side, the last time a sitting president decided not to run again was the Viet Nam-torn year of 1968, when Lyndon Johnson declined to be re-nominated—but that time it was before the primary season, so there was no question about how to proceed in replacing him on the ballot.
Kamala Harris
What to expect of a Kamala Harris presidency? Adam Ferrari, CEO of Phoenix Capital Group, said, “Harris’s energy policies would likely be similar to Biden’s, emphasizing environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation. Harris has historically supported strong environmental regulations and renewable energy initiatives, which means we will likely see a similar approach to Biden’s in EPA emissions, pipeline construction, and access to Federal/offshore/Alaska lands.”
Should Harris move further to the left, the industry, as Ferrari noted, could see increases in compliance costs, greater limitations on access to Federal lands, and more regulation of construction.
Harris on Hydraulic Fracturing
Historically, Harris has opposed hydraulic fracturing, both as a candidate in 2020 and as California’s attorney general. In 2016, reports the American Energy Alliance, a pro-oil-and-gas organization, “Harris filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration’s Interior Department in 2016, challenging potential frac’ing activities off the state’s coastline and describing the practice as a ‘threat to the health and well-being of California communities.’”
But in late July her campaign asserted that she had backed off on that stance. Trump brought up the issue at a late July rally in North Carolina. Harris campaign spokeswoman Lauren Hitt told EnergyNow Media that Trump’s claims were “false,” but provided no details, only stating that the Biden-Harris administration had created 300,000 new energy sector jobs, also pointing out that U. S. domestic energy production is setting new records.
For the other side of the oil and gas growth claims, read below under “Trump: Drill, Baby, Drill.”
During the 2020 election campaign Biden had promised to ban fracturing in the Gulf of Mexico quickly—something he did not end up doing. Instead, he issued a statement saying, “I do not propose banning frac’ing. I think you have to make sure that frac’ing is in fact not emitting methane or polluting the well or dealing with what can be small earthquakes in how they’re drilling. So, it has to be managed very, very well, number one.” While this angered the left, it moderated his original promise.
In fact, the president only has direct authority over federal lands, in which he/she could issue an executive order. For a larger ban, congressional approval through new legislation would be needed. And that would likely require a Democrat majority in both houses. Again, what would actually happen in a Harris administration remains to be seen.
Green New Deal Support
In 2019, says the IEA, Harris was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal pushed by New York’s Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and others. Meanwhile, the IEA has expressed concern that the Green New Deal, in promulgating policies that reduce oil and gas use and push renewables, including intermittent sources like wind and solar, could create energy poverty by reducing reliability and increasing costs on those who can afford it least.
Carbon Tax
Harris is also on record promoting a carbon tax to give economic incentives for companies to reduce carbon emissions, in statements made before the 2020 election. The Biden Administration never gave this serious attention, and Harris has not verbalized it recently, but some in the industry are concerned that it could return if she were to be elected.
Trump: Drill, Baby, Drill
In Trump there is also a known quantity due to his having served as president before. And he peppered his GOP convention acceptance speech with chants of “Drill, baby, drill,” promising to relieve the industry of many environment-related restrictions.
Ferrari notes, “We are likely to see a return to policies focused on deregulation and boosting domestic energy production, which included expanding access to federal lands, efforts to increase the U.S.’s energy independence, and a focus on fossil fuels.
Although there were oil and gas production gains during the Biden administration, much of that was a result of the technology-driven shale revolution, which was born in the early 2000s during the George W. Bush administration. It took off around 2009, with peaks and valleys through the Trump years, due mostly to world economic conditions. The year 2019 marked the first time in 67 years in which gross energy exports exceeded gross energy imports, according to the EIA.
Congress’s 2015 removal of restrictions on oil exports is also credited with giving U.S. producers more options, by opening up international markets. After embargoes began in Russian oil and gas, U.S. producers were able to ramp up to the rescue of Europe and others who suddenly were undersupplied.
In short, while both Trump and Biden promote their oil and gas record, the gains were mostly due to favorable oil prices, world events, and drastic gains in technology.
In his presidency Trump also did the following:
- Withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement
- Canceled the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule
- Approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines—which Biden promptly canceled upon taking office
- Repealed Obama’s Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium, which prohibited coal leasing on Federal lands
- Relaxed the EPA’s steam electric and coal ash rules
- Signed legislation repealing the Stream Protection Rule
- Reduced the time to approve drilling permits on public lands by half, increasing permit applications to drill on public lands by 300 percent
- Expedited approval of the NuStar’s New Burgos pipeline to export American gasoline to Mexico
In a second term he has promised to return fossil fuels to dominance, reduce or eliminate many Biden-era regulations (including the delays on federal drilling permits), refill the strategic petroleum reserve that had been significantly drained by Biden for non-emergency reasons, and reduce or eliminate much of the energy transition funding authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and other initiatives.
Down Ticket
While the Oval Office is important, any chief executive needs the support of Congress and the judicial system to enact and enable their goals. On that topic Ferrari noted, “No matter who wins the presidency, senate/congressional elections are important. Either candidate would need legislative backing for any policy change since any major changes in legislation need congressional approval.”
He continued, “Executive orders can bypass Congress, but they can still be overturned. Also, keep in mind that Congress has control over the budget directly impacting energy initiatives.”
Supreme Court
Along with the executive and legislative branches, the third branch, the Supreme Court, is also at play in elections, indirectly. Justices are appointed for life by the President and approved by the Senate. The court currently has a conservative supermajority largely because of three Trump appointees.
The court’s influence on the oil and gas industry came to light earlier this year in a decision that overturned a 40-year-old doctrine known as “Chevron Deference.”
According to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute, the Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo stated, “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.” The Chevron Deference had ceded all interpretation to the agencies tasked with interpreting and enforcing unclear Federal laws.
This allowed agencies like the EPA to update or reverse its handling of laws whenever an administration changed. With the new rule, says Inside Climate News, “Experts say the end result of the decision to overturn Chevron will be increased power for the courts and less for the executive branch.”
Even with executive branch power shifted to courts, the President still has power to appoint the court. But since judges are appointed for life instead of changing with each administration, judicial decisions will change less often under the new ruling. Who is elected president still matters.
Voter Trends on Energy
In an August 2023 poll cited by the environmentalist group Climate Power, the majority of voters were against many Trump energy policies, including:
- Repealing consumer tax credits and rebates passed as part of the clean energy plan (66 percent to 19 percent);
- Repealing tax credits for clean energy companies passed as part of the clean energy plan (59 percent to 28 percent);
- Downsizing the EPA and beginning a “pause and review” of major environmental regulations (61 percent to 31 percent);
- Eliminating environmental justice mandates (69 percent to 21 percent);
- Abolishing regulations on fossil-fuel-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions (58 percent to 31 percent);
- Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement (55 percent to 34 percent); and
- Eliminating the EPA’s existing standards on vehicle carbon pollution (59 percent to 30 percent)
Decisions, Decisions
Energy policies are far from the only issue in this election but, as with most issues, there is a great gulf fixed between the parties and the candidates on energy security and transition. There is no doubt that this is a watershed year for these decisions.
Paul Wiseman is a freelance writer in the energy sector.