What to expect from a Biden administration when it comes to energy? It’s mostly about climate policy, but also about energy politics.
From the start, reflecting Democratic orthodoxy, Biden pledged to a transition to an electric grid powered by 100% renewable power generation by 2030, and zero US greenhouse emissions by 2050. Those are ambitious goals that many analysts consider aspirational but unattainable. They are also goals beyond a Biden presidency, which will end in 2029, assuming he wins a second term.
Biden’s overall aim for zero net US greenhouse gas by 2050, is even more ambitious. To that end, his administration will put the US back into the Paris climate agreement, although it is unclear how that will advance the goal.
In the meantime, according to an analysis by energy consultants Wood Mackensie, Biden’s energy initiatives may founder on the hard grind of Washington politics. “A Republican majority Senate could stymie much of President-elect Biden’s plans. We won’t know what power he wields until the Georgia run-off in January.”
Longtime energy analyst and journalist Robert Bryce, writing in Forbes magazine, said that “Biden will find that overhauling our most important and most complex energy network – and doing so in just 15 years — is easier said than done. Decarbonizing our continent-spanning electric grid will require grappling with four big challenges: cost, keeping nuclear plants open, replacing natural gas in the power sector, and the ongoing land-use conflicts over renewables.”
When it comes to oil and gas, Biden is unlikely to do much to upset the domestic industry. While the Trump campaign charged that Biden would shut down fracking, that’s hollow. Biden has said he’s opposed to continued fracking on public lands, a small fraction of the business. Wood Mackenzie commented, “There will not be a ban on fracking, but Biden has pledged to end sales of new leases for oil and gas development on public lands and waters. Onshore, the impact would be minimal. Offshore, the effects would be more significant, although they would take some time to become apparent.”
In terms of electric power, much could depend on the incoming administration’s view of keeping uneconomic nuclear plants running. Bryce commented that, while the Democratic platform endorsed nuclear power, “Democratic leadership must decide if they are going to put their money where their mouth is and provide financial and political support for the nuclear plants that are slated for closure.”
The Democratic Party has pushed renewables, particularly wind and solar power, as keys to transforming the US electricity mix. But wind and centralized solar pose major land use issues, as they consume large amounts of land where they are sited, The need to move the power they generate to markets (although less so for rooftop solar) also raises land use issues. These may emerge if the Biden administration makes a major push for renewables on public land.
Then there is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which plays a key role in electric power regulation and siting of natural gas pipelines. Biden is likely to name Democrat Rich Glick as FERC chairman. But there are still two vacancies on the commission, one a Democratic slot and the other a Republican. Federal law requires a bipartisan balance of three members from the incumbent presidential party and two from the minority.
Two Trump nominations, Republican Mark Christie and Democrat Allison Clements, are pending in the Senate. The commissioners serve fixed five-year terms. So if Congress approves the two Trump nominees, it would lock in a Republican majority for a couple of years.
Republican former chairman Neil Chatterlee, whose term expires in 2022, and current Republican chairman James Danly, whose term expires in 2023, are locked in, and a Christie appointment would solidify a GOP majority. But the White House would appoint a new FERC chairman, likely Glick. How that would change the dynamics at the commission is not at all clear. The agency has generally not been a partisan hotbed.
— Kennedy Maize