The US midterm elections ended with a decisive Democratic victory, sparking a "blue wave" and turning attention to where US energy policy is headed next. The mainstream view holds that Democrats will carry on their traditional support for renewable energy. But analysts say that even with renewables at the center, the new approach will differ from the past. Most importantly, Democrats also find it hard to abandon fossil fuels. Fossil energy is a key US export resource and generates enormous economic returns. Democrats plan to halt Trump's anti-renewable and anti-climate agenda. After winning both the Senate and the House, Democrats will most likely move to genuinely reverse Trump's relevant policies. The vote results already reflect public dissatisfaction with the president, making such action a natural step, and energy policy is no exception. Democrats will target the various measures the Trump administration introduced to suppress renewables and to respond passively to climate issues. Trump is still in the White House, so Democrats plan to use legislation, budget leverage, and administrative oversight to slow the implementation of those policies. What measures did Trump's second term roll out to suppress renewables and respond passively to climate? Broadly, they include terminating Inflation Reduction Act tax credits early, cutting clean energy subsidies and budgets, tightening approvals for wind and solar projects, and halting offshore wind construction. Over the past two years, the US has broadly restricted renewable energy development, and these moves are now key targets for Democrats. Even before the election, Democrats had already begun pushing to restore the Inflation Reduction Act, the signature green industrial policy introduced during the Biden era. In March this year, Sean Casten and 164 Democratic House members jointly submitted the Energy Bill Relief Act, which would restore clean energy tax credits and renewable energy support funds, and prohibit discriminatory approval thresholds for wind and solar projects. Democrats are centering on electricity bills rather than climate narratives. Some analysts argue that Democrats' goal is not only to restart green policies. S&P Global Commodity Insights noted that during the midterm campaign, Democrats treated solar and wind as the core solution for controlling power prices. Data from investment bank Lazard shows that the levelized cost of electricity for large-scale solar in the US is as low as $40 per megawatt-hour, and onshore wind is $37 per megawatt-hour, lower than combined-cycle gas at $51, coal at $72, and new nuclear at $175. Regional differences are large, but overall US renewables are economically competitive. For this reason, Democrats began promoting that renewables can reduce people's expenses, instead of focusing on climate benefits. Inside Climate News, a US climate nonprofit media outlet, found that Democrats sharply reduced climate change-related language in press releases and campaign messaging, and this tone is also reflected in their renewable energy strategy. The economy-first approach has both pros and cons. If renewable power generation costs continue to fall, this could be the most powerful lever for winning voters. But a higher share of renewables does not directly equal lower electricity bills. In particular, the larger the scale of renewables, the greater the need to expand supporting infrastructure such as transmission networks and battery storage, and those costs must also be factored in. Once voters find that renewables are not as cheap as advertised, this economic narrative could backfire and shake Democrats' stance in favor of new energy. Recall that the very name of the Inflation Reduction Act put curbing inflation first, rather than aiming to expand renewables and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Gas and new energy advance in parallel, evoking the Obama-era approach. The mainstream thinking within the Democratic Party is no longer about developing renewables alone. James Talarico became the first Democratic federal senator in 38 years from Texas, the conservative stronghold, and wrote on his campaign website that Texas can create new jobs in frontier areas such as geothermal and hydrogen, while also expanding employment related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and batteries. Outside observers interpreted this as support for renewables without rejecting fossil fuels. This partly stems from Texas being home to the Permian Basin, the core US shale gas region. However, the dual-track strategy of fossil fuels and renewables running in parallel has been pursued by Democrats before. During the Obama administration, the shale revolution spread across the US. In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama proposed an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy to develop all types of domestic energy, a landmark moment for this dual-track approach. Fourteen years later, liquefied natural gas has become a core US export category. S&P Global Commodity Insights data shows that last year US LNG export value was $44 billion, roughly three times US film and television services export value, far exceeding the US soft power flagship industry; LNG export scale reached more than 80% of passenger vehicle exports. It is expected that by 2040, LNG will contribute a cumulative $1.4 trillion to US GDP. Democrats can hardly ignore such a high-value industry. The above is the impact of the midterm election "blue wave" on US energy policy. In summary, Democratic energy policy still centers on renewables, but the criteria for judging policy are no longer limited to climate governance; electricity prices and power supply reliability matter equally.
Comments