FROLITICKS

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.