Over the past two weeks, President-elect Trump has engaged in rapid-fire announcements of his picks for the cabinet and other top positions. Among the announced selections are Trump’s nominees for the three top positions in climate and energy policy: EPA Administrator (Lee Zeldin), Secretary of Energy (Chris Wright), and Secretary of the Interior (Doug Burgum). In this post I will take a first look at these nominees.
Without doubt, these three Trump appointees will be an enormous improvement over the Biden administration functionaries they will replace (EPA Administrator Michael Regan, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland). The three outgoing Bidenauts are all committed fanatic climate warriors, fighting every day to restrict development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, and thus to make America weaker and Americans poorer. Having them in office has been like having the country’s energy policy under the control of a cabal of its worst enemies.
But is there anything about President-elect Trump’s nominees for these positions that we should be at least somewhat concerned about? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. The subject of my principal concern is the so-called “all of the above” approach to energy policy.
But first the good news. All of Zeldin, Wright and Burgum are on record as proponents of lifting restrictions on development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, getting the government out of the way, and of letting that sector of the economy flourish.
Of the three, Wright, the nominee for Energy Secretary, has been the most vocal and outspoken as a fossil fuels proponent. Wright’s current job is CEO of Liberty Energy, a major player in the business of “fracking” to develop oil and gas resources. A piece in Politico’s E&E News today calls Wright a “fossil fuel evangelist.” A prior piece from the same source a few days ago (November 18) has some choice quotes from Wright, including his saying that “there is no climate crisis” and that net-zero emissions goals “neither achievable nor humane.”
Burgum, the nominee for Interior Secretary, is the current governor of North Dakota, the third largest among oil-producing states. As governor, Burgum has presided over rapid and continuing development of the Bakken shale formation in that state. The Hill, in a piece on November 15, quotes Burgum making promises of “unleashing American energy dominance,” words that echo a frequent Trump refrain. At Interior, Burgum will have the authority to open up large tracts of federal lands that have been withheld from development under Biden.
Zeldin, the nominee for EPA Administrator, has less of a record on energy issues than the other two. His principal prior service consists of eight years in Congress, from January 2015 to January 2023, representing eastern Long Island. At the end of that time, he gave up his seat in Congress to run unsuccessfully for Governor of New York (however, losing by only about 6 points, 53-47, in this very blue state). Newsweek in a November 11 piece, notes that he is a “longtime opponent of climate regulation,” that he got very low scores from the League of Conservation Voters during his time in Congress, and that in his 2022 gubernatorial campaign he promised to lift New York’s ban on fracking that had been imposed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.
So far, so good. However, all of these three nominees are tainted to greater or lesser degree by prior buy-in to the so-called “all of the above” energy policy, as well as to other schemes to fight the bogeyman of “carbon emissions.”
What’s wrong with the “all of the above” energy policy? This is the proposition that the government should promote all forms of energy development — not just fossil fuels, but also anything and everything else, from nuclear to hydro to geothermal to the “renewables” wind and solar. I had a post on this subject on November 2, just before the election. In that post I pointed out that while “all of the above” might sound obviously right as an energy policy, in practice there is a big problem:
In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and that drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.
So where do Trump’s three nominees stand on this subject?
Start with Burgum. He became Governor of North Dakota in 2016. Even as North Dakota’s oil and gas resources have been rapidly developed during his tenure, the same has also been true for wind energy. From the EIA’s North Dakota energy profile:
Wind power generation more than doubled in the state from 2015 to 2023. In 2023, wind was the second-largest electricity generating source in North Dakota and provided nearly two-fifths of the state’s net generation. The state ranked sixth in the nation in the share of its electricity generated from wind energy.
The problem here is that wind energy requires massive government subsidies, and also drives up electricity prices because it is incapable of supplanting reliable generation.
Then there is this about Burgum from the piece in The Hill:
As governor of North Dakota, Burgum set a goal in 2021 for the state to reach net-zero emissions by 2030. . . . However, his plan to meet that target did not include a transition away from fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change. Instead, Burgum said he wanted the state to use carbon capture and storage technology, which can prevent planet-warming emissions from entering the atmosphere, to reduce or offset its emissions.
Burgum gives the impression of being a smart guy. He certainly should be smart enough to understand why carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unlikely ever to be economical. Well, at least the subsidizing of CCS will not be under his jurisdiction as Interior Secretary.
Zeldin’s record on climate and energy issues is also somewhat mixed. From the Newsweek piece linked above:
Zeldin has expressed mixed views on climate change and environmental policy throughout his political career. . . . [H]e has supported some renewable energy initiatives, like extending solar investment tax credits and researching offshore wind potential. . . .
Those “solar investment tax credits” are precisely kinds of things that make the “all of the above” energy policy a cancer on the economy. Again, I suppose that the good news is that handing out or re-authorizing these kinds of subsidies will not be in Zeldin’s authority as EPA Administrator.
The guy mainly in charge of handing out the big subsidies and research grants is going to be Wright at the Department of Energy. Of the three Trump appointees discussed here, Wright has the strongest record with respect to the “all of the above” diversion, and in particular has been a vocal opponent of wind and solar. The November 21 Politico E&E piece linked above quotes Wright as follows as to wind and solar:
[H]e argued the government had gone too far in its attempts to green the economy by subsidizing renewables. “What I think the government’s doing catastrophically wrong is the vast majority of their money and subsidies are not for research, not for making technologies better,” Wright continued. “They’re deploying politically popular, low-energy density, intermittent, unreliable energy sources that have just destabilized our electricity, made energy more expensive, don’t really have a prospect of being a meaningful solution in the future.”
But then there are all kinds of other energy schemes angling for government handouts under the “all of the above” rubric. Politico E&E quotes Wright (referring to a former DOE grant-making official named Julio Friedman):
“What Julio is doing in carbon sequestration, on next generation nuclear, on next generation geothermal technologies — that can play a meaningful role going forward,” Wright said.
There’s CCS again. Nobody has made it work, and probably nobody ever will be able to make it work economically, but it just keeps popping up again and again with its hands out for government subsidies.
How about this as an energy policy for the incoming administration: the government rescinds the restrictive regulations, ends the handouts, and just lets the private sector develop whatever energy source may be the most efficient or profitable.
Zeldin is a climate change advocate. I don’t like his nomination.
His focus initially should be on getting rid of the `CO2 is a pollutant’ meme that is destructive of real climate science. Once this nonsense goes away, normality can rule again and the EPA can work on real pollution issues, not made-up ones.
The EPA should go away too. It’s a Nixon creation.
I would default do away with anything Nixon or Carter did. LBJ is a bit mixed, but highly suspect.
Anyone who said “I’ll have the [racial slur] voting Democrat for the next 200 years” is completely suspect. Not to mention Vietnam, the domestic impacts of which arguably gave the Left’s march through the institutions its largest boost since Wilson and FDR.
One does have to think about the character of a person who names his junk “Jumbo”.
‘It’s a Nixon creation.’
Created with vast Democrat majorities in Congress. The great irony about Nixon is that he gave the Left everything they wanted, particularly with the final uncoupling of the dollar from gold, at which point, there were no more monetary limits on Federal power. Nonetheless, the Left still hounded him to the grave because of his initial foray into politics as a ‘red baiter’.
The EPA had a very real charter back in the day. It was needed to deal with some very significant health issues being SMOG and lead. A couple of real issues occurred in the interim, but the point is, government bureaucracies alway live on past their usefullness. They are never established with an exit criteria or exit strategy.
The EPA needs to be addressed. Yes. CO2 defined as a pollutant is beyond its charter. There may be small pieces of the EPA that are worth keeping. Until a full assessment is completed we must follow the advice of not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Nixon… Yuk. the second most corrupt president in US history.
Actually, the top three most corrupt Presidents were Democrats. Nixon was a distant fourth or fifth.
Well come on…..name them?
I got Trump 1 then Nixon 2. The first impeached twice and the second once.
You know exactly who I’m going to name. So why do you waste bandwidth posting a stupid question?
By the way, Nixon was never impeached. Clinton was. You’re getting your Presidents confused.
You say you want a revolution…
We all wanna change the world.
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.
I know I’m standing that on its head politically but my point is that I would love to see the EPA abolished along with Education, and Energy, just for starters. But if that’s what you’re expecting in the next year, you’re going to be brutally disappointed. Trump is barely going to get his cabinet confirmed.
I just hope that he can enforce the existing laws on immigration and stop the strangling of the fossil fuel industry thereby boosting the economy and building on the common sense coalition.
He’ll do what the boss wants or he’ll hear, “you’re fired!” Same for the others.
That’s a hope!!
Now we just have to figure out exactly where Trump stands on CO2.
Is CO2 dangerous and needs regulation/reduction, or is it just a benign gas, essential for life on Earth?
Trump has never given a definitive answer to this kind of question. He has called the Green New Deal a scam but that wouldn’t prevent him from thinking that something needs to be done about CO2, just not this particular Green New Deal scam.
Somebody should ask Trump if he thinks CO2 levels need to be reduced. That would tell us where he stands.
Btw, Donald, there is no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. No evidence, Donald. So people who claim CO2 needs to be reduced are doing so based on no evidence whatsoever.
That should be your answer, Donald.
But his assistant president, Elon, is of the opinion that CO2 is a problem. There is a view that The Don is of the opinion of the last person to leave the room. That may be a problem.
Stopping the scam is far more important to me than having him be perfect on the science.
A muddled policy that nevertheless leads to energy independence and the practical collapse of Net Zero would be a ‘Yuge’ victory. I’ll take that over a perfect policy that gets blocked and leads to Speaker Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Schumer.
“Stopping the scam is far more important to me than having him be perfect on the science.”
Well you got no worries there.
How will that work if a majority of elected Republicans oppose his choices? People and policies…
In the UK if the Party doesn’t support the policies they don’t get made into Law…and a minister whose policies are unpopular with the Party can’t function…
Even Putin has to watch his step, and not venture onto high balconies if his oligarch supporters don’t like the mess he’s making…
How will what work? You mean if the Senate won’t confirm Trump’s nominees, or something else?
Well, there have been ongoing legislative battels in Congress and between Congress and the President, and between the House and the Senate and sometimes the Supreme Court gets its hands bloodies.
It we had not evolved to party-line politics and Congressmen voted for their constituencies, it would be different. The united party block are something George Washington warned about.
So, if the majority of elected Representatives and/or Senators disagree, it becomes more challenging, more compromise will be needed but never achieved.
The President submits his ideas for legislations. Congress does it differently and passes the law. The President vetos. Congress does not quite get enough votes to overriding the veto Have bogsats. Come up with a more agreeable compromise. Spin, rinse, repeat.
So much hope in such a fragile shell…
What we have to hope for it Trump allowing them to point out when he is making a mistake. One should never surround oneself with yesmen.
Zeldin has had to try to be acceptable to New York voters. That means being ambiguous about a lot of things that we’d rather see explicitly stated.
We have to be ready to take the half-full glass, people! Incremental progress is far better than what has been.
’All of the above’ is a political compromise. Political compromise is necessary when you have the slightest majority in the House and may frequently be depending on the Vice President’s vote in the Senate. Don’t forget that Collins, Murkowski, and Romney are effectively Democrats. That means a 50-50 Senate and basically a 50-50 House.
Setting unrealistic expectations is a good way to get us back under the Woke Oppression. Everything will be for nought if the 2026 elections hand the House and Senate back to the Democrats. Trump has to do what he can without new legislation other than possibly a judicious reconciliation bill to cut spending. And whatever gets cut has to be a popular cut, or it’s Game Over, dude.
The next two years have to be a play to win meaningful majorities in Congress.
AOC asked some of her voters why they voted for Trump. The real question is why did Trump voters vote for AOC.
How does she know how they voted?
But to the extent that anyone DID actually vote Trump and AOC, I can only offer these guesses:
Should have brought the reading glasses
Should have learned how to read
Wants to date her 🙂
“How does she know how they voted?”
She doesn’t, but she knows the voting counts in her district. Clearly some voted for her and Trump. She asked a group of her voters, and a few offered their opinions as to why.
An important question is who will be NASA’s administrator. NASA-GISS is the most corrupt of the climate scammers pushing the CO2 warming scam. It is a nest of of climate botherers that are out of control.
GISS needs to be disbanded and replaced with a scientific body working in the interests of USA and not the globalist’s agenda.
The measure of Trump’s success on Climate™ will be the number of job losses in the climate cabul.
The incentive needs to be change from pushing the scam to scientific research.
Did you mean cabal?
That was the eastern European spelling…. /humor
Solar and Wind do have their uses though. Most often segregated from the Grid. Solar is an excellent source of power for Back-up battery recharging (provided the battery(s) is/are of equitable size for the available solar capacity. Also for pumping water for Pumped Storage. Solar is also a good power source for Off Grid living.
Wind is a viable option for any sizable business that would want to source their power off grid or source some of their energy to offset grid charges at peak use times…if wind as available then.
Both are fantastic sources of income from government coffers when planted on Subsidy Farms.
Neither however are appropriate for maintaining grid stability or keeping power prices low.
I object, your Honor!
Both are fantastic sources of income from government coffers when planted on Subsidy Farms.
So you want income generated by the taxes I PAY?
Why not just hold out your hand and have me pay you directly? Oh, wait, that would reduce the total number of good paying, green, union jobs. Have to keep the bureauacracy and it’s 10%.
You forgot about Scott Bessent to lead Treasury who has common sense ideas about US energy:
“…an Economy that places Growth at the forefront, especially through our coming World Energy Dominance,” Trump said
Let us observe that Trump has taken his time with this appointment. He understands the gravity of the position of Treasury.
The economy underpins all of his economic and social reforms, by reforms I mean reversing the socialist/Marxist/woke destruction, and rebuilding and undoing the de-growth, debilitating social and economic policies of the Biden/Harris administration.
Bessent by all accounts is a very, very smart individual. Therefore, it will come as no surprise to him that abundant, cheap energy underpins EVERY aspect of a flourishing and growing economy.
Great article. The “all of the above” mantra is just as wrong as the decarbonization and net zero movements.
The really bad parts of the “all of the above” menu:
Above all, it is time to stop allowing intermittent sources such as wind and solar to inject energy into the system with no responsibility for anything at all when it is calm or dark. This parasitic practice must end – the sooner the better.
‘This parasitic practice must end – the sooner the better.’
Yes, the rules for determining dispatch order, payment and penalties for non-performance must be the same for all sources of energy purchased by the grid.
Let solar and wind participate in the electric market just like any other power source, without any preference, subsidy, or tax credits. I would be fine with that “all of the above” strategy.
Perhaps equivalent tax credits would be fairer.
Texas in February 2021 showed the folly of having wind on a grid. It just does not work in freezing rain and still air. And the diversion and price distortions in the market away from dispatchable sources was worse.
Two questions that should be applied to grid electricity supplies..
1… How much electricity can they reliably supply , say 90+% of the time, and at what cost? (cheapest base load)
2… How much “extra” might they be able supply above that amount, when needed.? (peaks)
Well, a view from afar.
Donald appears to be just as much an arsehole as Biden and the Dimmocrats. Just a different sort of arsehole funded by different sorts of interests.
I don’t believe he has any better understanding of any or the political issues facing the USA. But he is more adventurous. His ego makes him think he can do stuff.
So my prediction is that he will get some decisions spectacularly right and some spectacularly wrong.
And then when he has run out of decisions, he will get sacked by a disenchanted electorate and party.
I just hope it doesn’t result in Russians in London and the Chinese in California…even though both places arguably deserve to be turned into totalitarian shitholes.
Trump faces the monumental task of turning back the onslaught of the Left. I don’t know how ‘afar’ you are, but any success he achieves in this endeavor will benefit you as well. You should wish him success.
Actually, Trump understands “The Big Picture” as well as anyone on Earth.
There used to be a tv program on when I was a kid titled “The Big Picture” and every week it would give a rundown of all the different events that were going on in the world that might be a threat to the United states.
Trump sees the Big Picture. He sees it like Ronald Reagan saw it.
Don’t underestimate Trump. He understands the world better than you think. He understands human psychology better than you think. That’s why he is able to deal with murderous dictators successfully. He knows how to pressure them and what buttons to push.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/11/22/trump-counterrevolution-return-sanity/
A simple return to sanity.
And well past due.
Wow, Leo! You are really a deep thinker. Not.
“Well, a view from afar.”
Wow.. Leo lives in Ethiopia !
Too late on both counts Leo. The hope would be to bring them back from their current abject shithole-edmess.
I don’t know which interests you think are funding Trump. He was vastly outspent by the Democrats and he won historically large numbers of votes among traditionally Democrat groups. It feels like a common sense coalition to me.
It is not the job of EPA administrator to promote or demote any form of energy. “All of the above” is just fine, is actually what is required, of the EPA in its role of protecting and preserving the environment using its authorities under the several environmental laws enacted by Congress.
What is NOT fine is EPA selectively targeting one or more forms of energy supply for destruction through excessive unauthorized regulation. Pretty sure that Trump’s nominee will stick to what Congress authorized and will cease trying to create its own laws as a means of frustrating the actual laws enacted by Congress.
Leave it up to the Secretaries of Energy and Interior to deal with assisting American producers of energy such that we have abundant supply and a robust electrical grid. Pretty confident those two that Trump nominated to those two jobs will have their priorities straight.
Aside from the President and his nominees, it is also up to Congress to un-delegate powers that were wrongly delegated to the Executive branch. That is going to require a large change in Senatorial debate rules including the filibuster. With the filibuster rule as it has been applied for the last several decades, it is impossible for either party to ever make significant changes to the laws, even when their party holds the Presidency, thus frustrating the people. Providing for extended debate in the Senate is good, to prevent wild and crazy stuff coming from the House which has only a short term perspective. But there is no reason why, after an extended debate, that a simple majority of 51 votes cannot change, add, or nullify laws to meet the People’s needs.
And if the People don’t like the result, there is always another election every two years that can change the majorities and change the laws.
I favor agencies having to justify their programs, policies and spending against their charters and other legislation.
I prefer agencies also have to justify their continued existence according to their results or lack of results.
By all measures, the issues the EPA was created to address 50 years ago are solved. Now the bureaucrats are finding new missions to justify their continued existence.
Let’s sunset agencies like we do some laws. Make Congress do its job.
When I was inside the arena, it was called White Collar Welfare. Having spent a couple of years in that environment it was clear that the expression as apt and accurate.
You want to nuke the filibuster when you can barely get 51 votes in the Senate? That’s a mistake. New laws ought to enjoy broad support and not be radically partisan overreach. Gridlock is usually a Good Thing. Without the filibuster we would certainly have granted amnesty to 20 million undocumented Democrats.
You almost have to say you support an “all-of-the-above” energy policy to get a seat at the table. I prefer less lip-service to the gods of climate change and more straight talk like we get get with the new border czar.
Unfortunately is is not an easy divorce to separate climate from energy production in the current political enrironment.
The issue is not “all-of’the-above.” The issue is Biden mandated deployments and the debt accrued to fund the deployments. The second issue was not proper engineering, environmental, and financial studies that defined the ployment met the criteria of cost – risk – benefit analyses.
When one does an analysis of alternativea, one always approaches it with an all of the above tack until the cost – risk – benefit analysis clearly eliminates candidates.
I’m all for “All of the Above” as long as it doesn’t include taxpayer subsidies.
Let windmills and solar provide their own financing. If they are not economically viable doing that, then they should go out of business.
Concur.
The tax credits offered to one should be offered to all to keep a level playing field.
Note: Tax credits and not subsidies.
Making it fairly clear that wind and solar are being exploited by (Democratic party supporting) subsidy miners and other rent seekers might be the pitch to get Trump to back defunding them.
Assuming we have a legitimate DoJ and legitimate IRS, etc., those subsidy miners who have committed fraud should be put in line with the illegal aliens about to be deported.
Except we have Truth, Justice, and the American Way, so they have to face a trial.
Giving up values for expediency is at least part of how we got here. We can’t allow that to continue.
The major point of rent seeking is what you are doing is perfectly legal when you are doing it. Kicking back campaign funds to the party voting those subsidies and special purchase rules is also legal.
There is, however, no reason to continue that incestuous relationship when the suborned party is voted out.
Of all the very good points made in the article, there is one to which I must disagree.
Those “solar investment tax credits” are precisely kinds of things that make the “all of the above” energy policy a cancer on the economy.
Tax credits are not subsidies. It is the subsidies, noted in the article, that are disasterous.
Tax credits reduce the upward flow of money from the company to the US government.
Subsidies are the tsunami of money the US goverment floods out to the detriment of our great grand children.
If “all of the above” means tax credits and research into the plausibilities and probabilities of any or another energy source, why not? There is a big difference between assessing and analyzing versus deployment. Who know, funding the research could lead to scientific discoveries that make life better for everyone.
Very nice Francis, this is helpful. The important thing about all of the above is that it includes fossil fuels and nuclear. Our job is to push all of the above on a level playing field. If we must have subsidies and tax incentives none should get a preference. My suggestion would be to take the energy producer class that gets the least support and that will be the maximum standard for all producers. As for mandates no mandate should specifically favor one class over another. The only place for a mandate should be longevity, reliability and ability to produce the power we need when we need it.
Your assumption that the “all of the above” means continuing to throw money at failed green energy is dead wrong … the “above” in a Trump administration will be cost effective real energy sources …