Voters are most concerned about the economy, and the energy policy of the next government will make the difference: the experts

Whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, voters’ decision will determine energy policy for years to come. A Gallup poll published in October found that the economy is the most pressing issue affecting who they will vote for on Tuesday, while climate change came in second ahead of transgender issues. Other polls asking voters about the economy and climate change did found similar results.

Although these polls did not ask about energy policy, energy is an input for every product and service. When energy costs rise, so does the cost of everything. By 2022, fear of a recession loomed large in the headlinesand that recession has not occurred again in the years since. Some analysts have argued that a major reason for this is enormous amounts of oil and gas the US has produced.

“What almost all market observers get wrong is the nature of the relationship between energy and the economy. Most view energy as an input to economic activity, as if its contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) is no different than that of the other measurable goods and services included in this important calculation…. Energy is not an input to the economy, it is the economy.” writes Doomberga group of analysts who publish their work on Substack.

What the winner of the election does with energy over the next four years could have a bigger impact on the economy than many other policy areas.

Positions and promises

It’s been hard to pin down exactly where Democratic candidate Kamala Harris stands on energy. Energy was only mentioned briefly during the September presidential debate. Harris assured voters that she would not ban fracking and would support “diverse energy sources” to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. She further touted her casting vote on the Inflation Reduction Act. Her campaign platform also boasts that the US produced more energy than any other country under the Biden-Harris administration, resulting in the lowest prices at the pump in three years.

Although Harris has presented herself as a moderate on energy issues, her critics point out that she is received extensive support from anti-fossil fuel activists. According to them, this suggests that her pro-energy rhetoric is a means to win the elections. Once the White House is secured, they argue, she will pursue an energy policy course that, along with fellow Democrats, has resulted in extensive regulations making it more expensive to produce oil and gas. Some of her critics have argued she will be more radical in the energy field than its predecessor.

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, pursued a strong “green energy” agenda in his state, and critics have argued he was trying to compete with California’s climate agenda. As a result, they say: Residents And industries are crushed under high electricity rates.

Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, have provided much more detail about their views on energy. Since the start of the campaign Trump has promised to pursue policies that will enable America to maintain and grow its energy dominance. Neither Vance nor Trump had much to say on the issue during the debates, but both appeared separately on the podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” where they heavily criticized the wind industry.

Discussing the impact offshore wind has on whales, Trump claimed it drives them “damn crazy” and said, “I love oil and gas.” Vance spoke about the visual blight that wind farms have in the Midwest and Great Plains, calling the industry a “scam.”

Limits to power

Should Trump succeed in the elections and roll out a fossil fuel-friendly policy, it could take some time before this has an impact on energy costs and production figures. During Trump’s first term, the Bureau of Land Management offered an average of 6.3 million acres annually for oil and gas leasing on public lands during that four-year period. Under President Joe Biden, the BLM has offered an average of 506,000 acres between 2021 and 2023. That includes 1.1 million acres that were offered before Biden was inaugurated and a moratorium on oil and gas leasing.

Industry experts have said the explosion in acreage offered under the Trump administration has a lot to do with record high production numbers under Biden. That will happen then vice versa, regardless of who is elected. Regulatory uncertainty under Biden may also have contributed decline in offshore explorationand since 15% of crude oil production comes from offshore drilling, we could potentially see a decline in offshore production under the next administration.

Trump promised it reclaim unused funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. His ability to do that may be limited by the law itself. Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, argued last year that taxpayers will continue to have to pay because many of the subsidies only expire when certain emissions targets are met. Legislative action would therefore be needed to undo these subsidies.

Even if Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives after Tuesday’s elections, 18 Republicans from the House of Representatives wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson in August to express their opposition to reducing the IRA’s tax credits. Energy expert Robert Bryce states that companies are celebrating on these subsidies, and influential trade associations have pledged to protect federal largesse. This includes the American Petroleum Association and the American Chamber of Commerce.

Trump will, Bryce writes, be able to end the crisis pause on LNG export licenses and end Biden’s offshore wind campaign. The EV mandate will likely end as well, but that will be determined by realities on the market making it difficult for automakers to convince consumers to buy the vehicles.

Should Harris win

A victory for Harris, on the other hand, Bryce says, will give more power to those who want to advance the climate agenda, including the push to electrify everything. driving up energy costs.

Francis Menton, who created the “Manhattan Contrarian,” claims that Harris will pursue an anti-fossil fuel agenda if they win the presidential election. While it won’t be an outright ban on fracking, it will be a war on fossil fuel power plants, EV mandates, restrictions on pipelines, and continued restrictions on oil and gas leases on public lands. A Harris-Walz administration will also double the trillions in spending to pursue an energy transition under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Although polls show climate change coming last and the economy first on voters’ list of concerns, climate action groups have threw their weight behind Harris. Whether or not voters on Tuesday will make the connection between energy policy and the economy and reject that agenda remains to be seen.