As Trump’s energy agenda comes to focus, Texas is already leading the way
In his massive flurry of executive actions after being sworn in, President Donald Trump made clear that he intends to follow the Texas pro-energy model for energy success based on deregulation, innovation, and exploration.
Perhaps most consequentially, he declared a national energy emergency and put permits for oil and gas infrastructure on a fast track. He also signed executive orders to roll back oil and gas restrictions in Alaska and along our nation’s coasts and restarted the approval process for liquid natural gas exports. These actions — with more certainly to come — will incentivize a marked increase in energy production and exploration here in America.
But it would be wrong to think of these actions as mere energy policy. On the campaign trail, President Trump regularly spoke about how domestic energy is the key to success on the seemingly unrelated issues of global stability, clean air, clean water, and lower prices on utilities, housing, groceries, and more.
Take inflation and the economy. Energy impacts the price of everything else because it takes energy to manufacture products, grow crops, and move goods to stores, consumers, and construction sites. High energy prices drive up the costs of transportation, groceries, housing, healthcare, and everything else the American people rely on. To solve the affordability crisis, we must solve the energy crisis.
The power of American energy can also be seen in environmental protection. The U.S. has one of the cleanest economies in the world, which means to have a clean environment we must produce as much energy as possible in the U.S. This is especially the case with natural gas. When American production goes up, usage of cleaner energy goes up and dirtier energy goes down.
President Donald Trump already proved this was the case. During his first term, he cut red tape and empowered U.S. energy producers. Not only did these moves increase domestic energy production, under President Trump emissions declined. In fact, the Biden-Harris administration had higher emissions than Trump did despite years of heavy-handed green energy policies. Clearly our LNG production and export capacity is as much an environmental issue as it is an energy and cost issue.
On the foreign policy front, America’s leverage in the world plummets if other nations rely on Russia, Iran, or Venezuela for their energy needs instead of on the U.S. If we want a free and stable world, we must produce enough energy not only for ourselves, but also enough to keep our allies strong and adversaries in check.
Not to mention according to the International Energy Agency, AI, cryptocurrency, and data centers could double their 2022 energy consumption levels by 2026. To take advantage of these technologies that will drive American prosperity in the next generation, we must increase energy production substantially.
Simply put, America’s strength at home and abroad demands more energy, and Trump is already starting to deliver.
If President Trump’s pro-energy agenda — an agenda that drives down prices, promotes global stability, fuels technological innovation, and delivers a cleaner environment — sounds familiar, that’s because it’s exactly what Texas has been doing for decades.
Texas is the friendliest state for energy production. We are the top energy producer in the nation, and in 2023, we produced 27% of our nation’s clean natural gas. We have long-welcomed energy exploration, offshore drilling, and innovative extraction techniques like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
But we also haven’t rested on our laurels on oil and gas. With regard to renewable sources, we have the second most solar installations of any state, more nuclear reactors than all but five states, and even produced enough hydroelectric power to serve nearly 3 million Texans.
With our all-of-the-above energy approach, Texas has already proven that Trump’s energy agenda will be a success. In recent years, the Texas economy has grown well over twice as fast as America as a whole while delivering comparatively lower energy bills than other states and increasingly clean air. Costs are down, economic strength is up, and our environment is clean.
Texans know that when our energy industry thrives, our citizens thrive. As President Trump continues to embrace the full potential of American energy, our nation as a whole will start to experience the Texas success story.
Catherine Frazier is a communications strategist based in Texas and founder of Eberly Advisors. She previously served in senior roles for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Texas still has too much wind. While the subsidy miners are relying on federal programs, wind is weather dependent as we discovered to our detriment in February 2021.
Stopping the perverse incentives for utilities to add wind, and retire dispatchable sources that have been written down is needed.
and solar?
And grid-scale battery storage.
Heh – no wonder it reads like Chinese propaganda:
I guess she’s repressed the memory of 2021. To be fair, Texas did survive the last month’s cold blast, as did its neighbors.
Review:
2021: https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/7-facts-from-great-texas-freeze :
2022: https://freopp.org/oppblog/crisis-averted-texas-february-freeze/
I doubt Texans really want “low carbon” energy.
“I guess she’s repressed the memory of 2021. To be fair, Texas did survive the last month’s cold blast, as did its neighbors.”
The last cold blast was mild in comparison to the February 2021 arctic blast that took down the Texas grid.
The way the operators of all the electrical grids are now talking, which is to warn about times of high electricity usage (hot and cold), if we had another arctic cold blast like the one in 2021, the grid in Texas wouldn’t be the only one going down.
All of our grids have added too many windmills and solar and have subtracted reliable generation capacity to the point that all our grids are now on the edge of blackouts.
It doesn’t look like we are going to get any more serious cold in the United States for the rest of the winter, other than in the northeast, so the next crunch point will be the coming summer.
“All of the above” (incorporating windmills and solar into the grid) has put ALL our electric grids in jeopardy of blackouts.
“All of the above” (incorporating windmills and solar into the grid) has put ALL our electric grids in jeopardy of blackouts.
Not if it is done right. In Maryland, the solar supplements the grid. When the sun shines, energy costs lower a tad. But the grid does not depend on those supplements. It is a sound engineering configuration.
Perhaps the phrase “incorporating … into the grid” has a nuanced meaning I am overlooking, as in possibly meaning dedicated as primary energy sources, is the meaning intended.
You mean in Maryland Solar does not get special favors as far as pricing goes?
If unreliable generation (windmills and solar) are used but the grid does not depend on them, then the problem is eliminated.
The problem with other grids is they *do* depend on undependable windmills and solar for their electricity, and they do give windmills and solar special pricing which drives up the cost of electricity.
The loss of electricity to pump nat gas pipelines is the direct result of the law that made cogeneration at pumping stations using nat gas taps illegal. They MUST be connected to the grid. I.E. no grid power no pumping power. That law/regulation needs to be immediately eliminated!
Doesn’t NY state have a lot of shale gas but it doesn’t allow that industry to develop? What can Trump do to push the development of that resource?
Yes. Not only does NY host the second largest portion of the Marcellus, it hosts the majority of the underlying equally prolific but not yet drilled Utica. NY is nuts.
And that shale gas should be going into New England!
When western Pennsylvania was undergoing the big timber cut in the late 1800s many enterprising young folks moved into the area of Clarion County (My boyhood home.). See: Cook Forest State Park PA on wiki. Gas and oil and coal finds in the region followed. To the NNE, the Bradford oilfield followed. An uncle was a wildcatter there and many of the forest young’uns went north with their wives, including some of my aunts. The New York State line is just 2 miles north of the town of Bradford and the smaller burg called Derrick City.
If you develop a local source of energy, like the Marcellus in New York, you do not need pipelines crisscrossing the area to deliver it. Pennsylvania is known for “gas-by-wire” where combined cycle generating units sit very close to fracked gas sources and deliver the energy by electric transmission. A win for everyone.
Good point. My former House Representative Claudia Tenney is in a different congressional district now due to new district boundaries, but she is a strong supporter of resuming natural gas development here in NY.
I’m hoping your governor and mine will both be out in the next elections.
Too much wind/solar is up here already. We need relief from plans to attach CCS to every thermal plant. And the green hydrogen hub people are hoping for? There are a lot of very poor ideas to battle — Trump, we need some adult supervision.
Agreed. CCS for “climate” mitigation, and hydrogen for fuel are just really bad ideas, yet ExxonMobil is pushing them bigly, e.g. at their huge Baytown TX complex. The subsidies and tax incentives need to go away ASAP.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/new-jersey-climate-lawsuit-dismissed-prejudice-court-rejects/
That is another sign that it is not the end, nor the beginning of the end, but perhaps the end of the beginning.
The case will be appealed.
It totally ignores that the oil companies did research on both sides of the issue and projections in those “oil companies knew” reports were based on models the oil companies did not develop.
My U.S. Senator, Lankford, is reported to be promoting a Carbon Capture bill in the U.S. Senate.
I guess I’m going to have to send him an email and tell him that Carbon Capture has never been economical and never will be economical, and there are no viable working Carbon Capture’s going on now.
Who put this idea in your ear, Senator Lankford? It’s a bad idea.
Even worse, now I see that one of my Senators believes CO2 is enough of a problem that it needs to be removed from the air with my taxpayer money.
Yep, going to have to write an email.
Texas is pretty good with wind too:
“Texas is pretty good with wind”
Until the wind doesn’t blow, or they get all iced up in winter. Then when things collapse, there is electricity to drive the gas through the pipes.
The anti-CO2 farce, and those clowns that have fallen for it or support it, has a lot to answer for. !
“Texas is pretty good with wind too”
Yeah, that’s the problem.
That, and too many idiot politicians think windmills and solar are a good thing.
The only thing they are good for is sucking down the taxpayer subsidies.
Without subsides and special pricing favors, windmills and solar would not be economically viable, and therefore would not be part of the Texas grid.
Texas is supposed to be conservative. How about Texans demand that windmills and solar stand on their own economically, without taxpayer money. That would be the conservative thing to do.
Free Enterprise for all. May the most economically viable win.
“All of the Above” is stupid. It’s a scam. A fraud. A theft.
As an engineer with 5 decades of experience, I cannot support all of the above is negative.
It must be balanced, with proper analysis of alternatives, cost-risk-benefit analysis, failure modes and effects analysis including single point failure analysis, all included.
Some are primary sources for the grid. Some are better as grid supplements.
Economics is definitely part of it. As an engineer, I am trained to treat cost as an independent variable not to be ignored.
Sure.
But that misses the point.
It’s not how much or how little solar and wind are built (costs aside), it is how they are incorporated into the electrical grid that matters.
Wind mills suck. Texas has WASTED $billions on sporadic bird choppers. A little more honesty and a little less rah rah, please.
True about Texas in the short run because of infrastructure. In the long run, it will be Alaska for oil (ANWR) and NY for natgas—after they eliminate their foolishness concerning tapping the Marcellus and Utica natgas shales.
NY is of two minds about natural gas. The restrictions against development of the Marcellus and Utica formations are just dumb, as you note. But when push comes to shove and a big project needs natural gas, guess what? Approval for a huge new supply pipe is no problem when it is obvious that electricity won’t work.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/how-will-a-major-milk-plant-fit-under-nys-climate-limits-it-wont/
I would think if NY goes big on shale gas- that would do a lot for its economy and provide many real jobs- not temp jobs installing wind and solar.
“…under President Trump emissions declined. In fact, the Biden-Harris administration had higher emissions than Trump…”
Please stop talking about “emissions” – which presumably refers to CO2. It doesn’t matter! And what is the “dirtier energy” you are talking about? Coal-fired electricity? There is nothing “dirty” about it with proper stack controls on actual pollutants.
Of course. H2O is one of those wrongly named greenhouse gasses. Natural gas, as I recall, “emits” more H2O as a byproduct than C. Coal has traces of things, most of which are scrubbed, so living next to a coal fire plant has not hazards or health issues, thus deserving the prefix “clean.”
The point being, I agree with your statement about “emissions” in that H2O is also an “emission” and a “greenhouse gas.”
Neither Co2 nor H2O are pollutants. If they were then every American, in fact all 8 billion people on the planet would be in court on charges of pollution. We all exhale CO2 and H2O with every breath.
The way they hijack, redefine, and repurpose language is…. annoying to say the least.
TIP
Phoenix-based Nikola has been working with its law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman to explore options that could include a sale or restructuring of the company in bankruptcy,
This ‘all of the above’ plea resting on Texas should be summarily dismissed.
Texas is the leading wind/solar state because of crony capitalism that began with Ken Lay of Enron, the Bushes, and Rick Perry. BOO! http://www.masterresource.org/texas/george-w-bush-wind-energy/
Exactly! It’s all a scam on the taxpayers/ratepayers.
I also fear that the author has renewable energy clients at her PR firm. Boo
This is all good except going ahead with wind and solar is going backwards. Texas has lots of wind and solar because government pissed away so much money on subsidies, strike price, CfD, tax preferences and mandates. Stop building wind and solar they don’t work, build fossil fuel and nuclear they do work.
An “All of the Above” approach shows a lack of understanding. The infusion of parasitic wind, solar, and batteries into the Texas energy mix results in increased cost for people and dangerous instability of our grid. The growth of WSB only benefits the vested interests.
“The growth of WSB only benefits the vested interests.”
That’s right!
It is not necessarily lack of understanding. It may be a calculated attempt to save parasitic climate industrial complex, exploiting lack of understanding of the gullible who are going to pay for it.
Valid point.
An “All of the Above” approach shows a lack of understanding.
True and the lack of understanding is how to efficiently use each of those in the proper roles and proportions in generating electricity. Batteries [should] not [be] included. Wind and solar have a role, albeit smallish, as a supplement to the energy production. When operating, there can be a reduction of fuel costs, but the primary energy generation has to provide all that is needed in the absence of wind and solar. In Maryland, when the sun is shining, consumer energy costs go down, or at least mine do.
The author is an idiot
Texas is one of the worst states for electric grid policy
And there is no US energy emergency
Biden gave us two years in a row, 2023 and 2024, with record oil and gas production and record oil, gas and coal exports.
TEXAS GRID
HAS THE MOST WINDMILLS of Any State
HAS A NATURAL GAS JUST IN TIME DELIVERY SHORTAGE IN VERY COLD WEATHER THAT CAUSED 2021 AND 2011 BLACKOUTS
HAD WORST US BLACLOUT IN PAST 20 YEARS (2021)
WHY WOULD ANYONE WITH SENSE WANT AN ELECTRIC GRID LIKE THE ONE IN TEXAS?
And why would anyone think the US needs more oil and gas when there are no oil shortages at US oil refineries and gas prices are the same as they were on December 31, 2024 — no evidence of any shortage.
Every grid in the United States has a grid like the one in Texas.
They are all in danger of having blackouts during very severe weather. That’s what the System Operators are saying.
And the reason for the blackout risk is that all U.S. electrical grids have added so much wind and solar and subtracted conventional generation to the point that now all the grids are in the same shape as the Texas grid, overly dependent on undependable windmills and solar.
The U.S. needs more oil and gas so that the price of gasoline goes lower which helps reduce inflation for Americans and reduces the price that Putin gets for his oil, making him less capable of murderous behavior.
You have identified the 2 critical issues.
The first tank of gas I bought, I paid 13.9 cents per gallon. Those were the days.
We didn’t know how good we had it, did we. 🙂
This is a big one!
Yes but when he said “drill baby drill,” was he talking about oil or Stormy?
Must be oil, because Trump and Stormy say he never did drill Stormy.
Stopped reading here.
The dirtiest energy sources in the country are wind and solar, not due to “emissions” during power generation but due to the fabrication and installation of those atrocities augmented by the real, poisonous pollution of battery manufacturing and fires.
As an aside, I read a report that states solar panels give off CO2 during their first 3 years of operation, give or take. I have not verified this. Anyone with additional information, please add.