By Paul Bubbosh, Adjunct Professor
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of George Mason University.
Project 2025, Chapter 12 (“Department of Energy and Related Commissions,” by Bernard L. McNamee) is premised on two allegations, both of which are fundamentally flawed, namely that the U.S. is in an energy crisis and that “green” polices are to blame. The fact that both allegations are false handicaps the arguments that follow and sours any thoughts on possible bi-partisan collaboration on energy. In short, it is the same old game plan by the same old actors.
Premise 1: “Yet ideologically driven government policies have thrust the United States into a new energy crisis just a few short years after America’s energy renaissance…” (page 363)
- To label the current administration as causing an energy crisis wildly misses the mark. In 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did cause an energy crisis. This crisis was during the Trump Administration. Is the U.S. in an energy crisis today? No. The U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum and natural gas. We are in a comfortable and secure energy position. In fact, our outlook is strong. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, crude oil prices will remain flat for 2024 and 2025.[1] Further, the U.S. is setting records in crude oil production.[2] Natural gas prices may have a slight increase in the same time frame (2024-2025), but prices are well below crises markers.[3]
- The most common complaint about energy is the cost of gasoline and diesel for vehicles. Prices are higher, which reflects inflationary effects across the economy. Crude oil is a commodity, sold around the world, and subject to price spikes largely outside the control of U.S. policy and its Presidents. A country like Saudi Arabia, however, owns its crude oil production and can control gas prices and influence international prices due to its large reserves. During the COVID-19 pandemic, crude oil supply far surpassed demand resulting in lower prices at the pump. Interestingly, U.S. international oil companies lost money under Trump and have profited more under Biden.
- One last item on this theme. The emergence of the U.S. as a dominant player in energy coincided with the Obama Administration and its policies. If you recall, the Obama Administration approved oil and natural gas leases that yielded the boom in unconventional oil and natural gas plays, largely due to technological advancements (fracking).
Premise 2: “The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme “green” policies.” (page 363)
- This sentiment appears consistently throughout conservative ideology, yet it has absolutely no basis in fact. In short, there’s no evidence to support this contention. It has become the “boogeyman” of conservatives, akin to Texas Governor Abbott blaming wind power for the state’s colossal natural gas and infrastructure failures in the winter storm of February 2021. It’s a convenient scapegoat but it makes no sense.
- Project 2025 goes as far as to say that “green” policies, which I assume includes policies to promote renewable energy, endanger U.S. energy security. This is preposterous. Solar and wind energy are cheaper than coal[4] and similar to prices for natural gas. Coupled with energy storage options, like battery and pumped hydropower storage, renewables are as reliable as fossil fuels. It is important to note that any policy reliant on any one source of energy will present an energy security risk. I believe the current policies are similar to ones that advanced fossil fuels in the past (e.g., subsidies, production and investment tax credits, favorable lease terms on public lands). There is this misnomer that Biden policies favor only one source of energy, which largely ignores the incentives for nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration for fossil fuel plants. What’s happening now is a leveling of the playing field, and advocates for fossil fuels are threatened by this.
- The other major consideration, and one that triggers the most anxiety among conservatives, is the notion that fossil fuels and its associated greenhouse gases are a threat to our future as a livable planet. To accept this scientific fact is to acknowledge that coal, natural gas, and petroleum are bad for us. This is at the heart of Project 2025, Chapter 12. The chapter sits among a litany of other old school conservative broadsides aimed at scaring us about everything non-fossil fueled. My personal favorite is the one about how addressing climate change is bad for our economy and will result in lost jobs. There’s not a credible economist today that would agree with this assessment. It’s just the opposite. All reports point in the direction that if we do nothing about rising levels of greenhouse gases things are only going to get worse—economically—and livability on our planet will be threatened.
When the author of this report pleads to stop the war on oil and natural gas, I wonder what world he is living in when he is waging a war on renewables (e.g. get rid of appliance efficiency standards). There’s this plaintive cry for saving fossil fuels from the dreaded, big bad solar and wind industry, but in the same breath the author is trying his hardest to destroy renewables, energy efficiency, and livability on our planet.
On a positive note, I do agree with the author that more needs to be done on securing the electric grid from cyber-attacks and an ageing infrastructure. Our current electricity law was born in 1920 (Federal Power Act) in a country that looks very different from the one today. We need an updated electrical grid, a safe one, and an interconnected national grid that can move solar and wind energy across states, as needed. Renewable energy is here to stay because market fundamentals make it so. Instead of the same old tired partisan political tactics, we should focus on constructive, genuine, and worthy discussion about energy security.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61222
[2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545
[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61385
[4] https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-crossover-3-0/