Marines look to solar and biofuel power generation

Champlain Hudson Power Express connects Hydro-Québec hydropower to the New York grid via a 1.25 GW high voltage transmission line, enabling renewable energy imports, grid decarbonization, storage synergy, and reduced fossil fuel generation.

Key Points

A 1.25 GW cross-border transmission project delivering Hydro-Québec hydropower to New York City to displace fossil power.

✅ 1.25 GW buried HV line from Quebec to Astoria, Queens

✅ Supports renewable imports and grid decarbonization in NYC

✅ Enables two-way trade and reservoir storage synergy

Last week, Quebec Premier François Legault took to Twitter to celebrate after New York State authorities tentatively approved the first new transmission line in three decades, the Champlain Hudson Power Express, that would connect Quebec’s vast hydroelectric network to the northeastern U.S. grid.

“C’est une immense nouvelle pour l’environnement. De l’énergie fossile sera remplacée par de l’énergie renouvelable,” he tweeted, or translated to English: “This is huge news for the environment. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy.”

The proposed construction of a 1.25 gigawatt transmission line from southern Quebec to Astoria, Queens, known as the Champlain Hudson Power Express, ties into a longer term strategy by Hydro Québec: in the coming decade, as cities such as New York and Boston look to transition away from fossil fuel-generated electricity and decarbonize their grids, Hydro-Québec sees opportunities to supply them with energy from its vast network of 61 hydroelectric generating stations and other renewable power, as Quebec has closed the door on nuclear power in recent years.

Already, the provincial utility is one of North America’s largest energy producers, generating $2.3 billion in net income in 2020, and planning to increase hydropower capacity over the near term. Hydro-Quebec has said it intends to increase exports and had set a goal of reaching $5.2 billion in net income by 2030, though its forecasts are currently under review.

But just as oil and gas companies have encountered opposition to nearly every new pipeline, Hydro-Québec is finding resistance as it seeks to expand its pathways into major export markets, which are all in the U.S. northeast. Indeed, some fossil fuel companies that would be displaced by Hydro-Québec are fighting to block the construction of its new transmission lines.

“Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition,” Gary Sutherland, director of strategic affairs and stakeholder relations for Hydro-Québec, told the Financial Post, “which is a good thing because it makes the project developer ask the right questions.”

While Sutherland said he isn’t expecting opposition to the line into New York, he acknowledged Hydro-Québec also didn’t fully anticipate the opposition encountered with the New England Clean Energy Connect, a 1.2 gigawatt transmission line that would cost an estimated US$950 million and run from Quebec through Maine, eventually connecting to Massachusetts’ grid.

In Maine, natural gas and nuclear energy companies, which stand to lose market share, and also environmentalists, who oppose logging through sensitive habitat, both oppose the project.

In August, Maine’s highest court invalidated a lease for the land where the lines were slated to be built, throwing permits into question. Meanwhile, Calpine Corporation and Vistra Energy Corp., both Texas-based companies that operate natural gas plants in Maine, formed a political action committee called Mainers for Local Power. It has raised nearly US$8 million to fight the transmission line, according to filings with the Maine Ethics Commission.

Neither Calpine nor Vistra could be reached for comment by the time of publication.

“It’s been 30 years since we built a transmission line into the U.S. northeast,” said Sutherland. “In that time we have increased our exports significantly … but we haven’t been able to build out the corresponding transmission to get that energy from point A to point B.”

Indeed, since 2003, Hydro-Québec’s exports outside the province have grown from roughly two terrawatts per year to more than 30 terrawatts, including recent deals with NB Power to move more electricity into New Brunswick. The provincial utility produces around 210 terrawatts annually, but uses less than 178 terrawatts in Quebec.

Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition

In Massachusetts, it has signed contracts to supply 9.4 terrawatts annually — an amount roughly equivalent to 8 per cent of the New England region’s total consumption. Meanwhile, in New York, Hydro-Québec is in the final stages of negotiating a 25-year contract to sell 10.4 terawatts — about 20 per cent of New York City’s annual consumption.

In his tweets, Legault described the New York contract as being worth more than $20 billion over 25 years, although Hydro Québec declined to comment on the value because the contract is still under negotiation and needs approval by New York’s Public Services Commission — expected by mid-December.

Both regions are planning to build out solar and wind power to meet their growing clean energy needs and reach ambitious 2030 decarbonization targets. New York has legislated a goal of 70 per cent renewable power by that time, while Massachusetts has called for a 50 per cent reduction in emissions in the same period.

Hydro-Quebec signage is displayed on a manhole cover in Montreal. PHOTO BY BRENT LEWIN/BLOOMBERG FILES
According to a 2020 paper titled “Two Way Trade in Green Electrons,” written by three researchers at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts’ Institute for Technology, Quebec’s hydropower, which like fossil fuels can be dispatched, will help cheaply and efficiently decarbonize these grids.

“Today transmission capacity is used to deliver energy south, from Quebec to the northeast,” the researchers wrote, adding, “…in a future low-carbon grid, it is economically optimal to use the transmission to send energy in both directions.”

That is, once new transmission lines and wind and solar power are built, New York and Massachusetts could send excess energy into Quebec where it could be stored in hydroelectric reservoirs until needed.

“This is the future of this northeast region, as New York state and New England are decarbonizing,” said Sutherland. “The only renewable energies they can put on the grid are intermittent, so they’re going to need this backup and right to the north of them, they’ve got Hydro-Québec as backup.”

Hydro-Québec already sells roughly 7 terrawatts of electricity per year into New York on the spot market, but Sutherland says it is constrained by transmission constraints that limit additional deliveries.

And because transmission lines can cost billions of dollars to build, he said Hydro-Québec needs the security of long-term contracts that ensure it will be paid back over time, aligning with its broader $185-billion transition strategy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Sutherland expressed confidence that the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would be constructed by 2025. He noted its partners, Blackstone-backed Transmission Developers, have been working on the project for more than a decade, and have already won support from labour unions, some environmental groups and industry.

The project calls for a barge to move through Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, and dig a trench while unspooling and burying two high voltage cables, each about 10-12 centimetres in diameter. In certain sections of the Hudson River, known to have high concentrations of PCP pollutants, the cable would be buried underground alongside the river.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

TransLink Electric Bus Pilot launches zero-emission service in Metro Vancouver, cutting greenhouse gas emissions with fast-charging stations on Route 100, supporting renewable energy goals alongside trolley buses, CNG, and hybrid fleets.

Key Points

TransLink's Metro Vancouver program deploying charging, zero-emission buses on Route 100 to cut emissions and fuel costs.

✅ Cuts ~100 tonnes GHG and saves $40k per bus annually

✅ Five-minute on-route charging at terminals on Route 100

✅ Pilot data to guide zero-emission fleet transition by 2050

TransLink's first battery-electric buses are taking to the roads in Metro Vancouver as part of a pilot project to reduce emissions, joining other initiatives like electric school buses in B.C. that aim to cut pollution in transportation.

The first four zero-emission buses picked up commuters in Vancouver, Burnaby and  New Westminster on Wednesday. Six more are expected to be brought in, and similar launches like Edmonton's first electric bus are underway across Canada.

"With so many people taking transit in Vancouver today, electric buses will make a real difference," said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a think tank at Simon Fraser University, in a release.

According to TransLink, each bus is expected to reduce 100 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and save $40,000 in fuel costs per year compared to a conventional diesel bus.

"Buses already help tackle climate change by getting people out of cars, and Vancouver is ahead of the game with its electric trolleys," Smith said.

She added there is still more work to be done to get every bus off diesel, as seen with the TTC's battery-electric buses rollout in Toronto.

The buses will run along the No. 100 route connecting Vancouver and New Westminster. They recharge — it takes about five minutes — at new charging stations installed at both ends of the route while passengers load and unload or while the driver has a short break. 

Right now, more than half of TransLink's fleet currently operates with clean technology, offering insights alongside Toronto's large battery-electric fleet for other cities. 

In addition to the four new battery-electric buses, the fleet also includes hundreds of zero-emission electric trolley buses, compressed natural gas buses and hybrid diesel-electric buses, while cities like Montreal's first STM electric buses continue to expand adoption.

"Our iconic trolley buses have been running on electricity since 1948 and we're proud to integrate the first battery-electric buses to our fleet," said TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond in a press release.

TransLink has made it a goal to operate its fleet with 100 per cent renewable energy in all operations by 2050. Desmond says, the new buses are one step closer to meeting that goal.

The new battery-electric buses are part of a two-and-a-half year pilot project that looks at the performance, maintenance, and customer experience of making the switch to electric, complementing BC Hydro's vehicle-to-grid pilot initiative underway in the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News