Making Energy Security Federal Law Insulates Local Officials From Political Pressure

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Politicizing America’s energy resources by subsidizing “alternatives” and crafting laws that prioritize wind and solar over hydrocarbons leads to more expensive and less reliable electricity generation.

When governments choose winners and losers, proven and efficient methods and industries take a back seat. Productivity falls off. Innovation and risk-taking are disincentivized. Competition is discouraged. Consumer choices are reduced. At the same time, quality suffers, tax dollars are wasted and investor confidence in markets and institutions is shaken.

The real-world financial realities of government decision-making based on far-left political agendas are becoming increasingly evident, with whole communities paying the consequences. Case in point: Oakland, California.

As the New York Times recently reported, “A decade ago, when environmental protesters banded together and convinced (Oakland) to renege on a contract allowing coal shipments from an Oakland terminal, it set off a chain of events that undermined a Kentucky coal company and left the city potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars. Since then, judges have ruled multiple times against Oakland, which is already plagued by serious financial problems.”

The article explained that in 2013 “the city gave permission to a local developer, Phil Tagami, to build a $250 million shipping terminal on that land. He then signed a lease with a company that planned to ship as many as 12 million tons of coal per year, according to court documents. It was set to become the largest coal export facility on the West Coast, opening up Asian markets as demand dipped domestically.”

But when news of the deal broke, activists lobbied Oakland City Council to prohibit coal from entering the city, arguing that even though the coal wasn’t slated to be burned there, “toxic dust” could pollute the air. Additionally, “environmentalists were adamantly opposed to Oakland contributing to the use of more fossil fuels,” supposedly worsening climate change.

Caving to pressure, city council unanimously passed an ordinance in 2016 banning large imports of coal. Tagami, the developer who had made the coal deal, sued twice and won each time. But that wasn’t the end of Oakland’s problems.

This past October, a bankruptcy judge ruled that the city’s actions unjustly harmed the Kentucky company supplying the coal, forcing it into bankruptcy. The judge suggested hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. One legal expert told the Times that if forced to pay, the city’s options included raising taxes or issuing bonds, and added, “The specter of bankruptcy for Oakland is not off the table.”

True to form, some environmentalists interviewed by the Times still defended the decision to oppose the coal shipments despite the financial implications to the city and its residents.

While Oakland’s dispute involves coal, it’s not hard to imagine similar battles involving other hydrocarbons like natural gas, or other effective energy sources like nuclear. It’s frightening to contemplate the fact that the controversy in Oakland wasn’t even about an energy source being used there, but intended to be shipped overseas.

Will activists rise up next to stop the shipment of gas or other hydrocarbons from one country to another? No need to wonder – they’re already doing so in ports around the world.

To prevent local officials from caving to the politically driven energy constraints demanded by far-left activists, federal legislation must be passed defining America’s energy position and protecting our most affordable and effective resources, both for domestic use and for exporting. The Affordable, Reliable Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES) currently pending in Congress would guarantee America’s energy security and codify into law the United States’ commitment to cost-effective and dependable energy resources.

When our nation declared its independence, Thomas Jefferson, with input from others, crafted one of the most famous statements of principle in human history: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Generating accessible and affordable electricity – essential for modern-day life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – depends on our most accessible and affordable resources. To insulate state and local officials from radical-left pressure that would endanger Americans’ rights to energy security, Congress must pass ARC-ES.

More and more people around the world are recognizing that access to affordable and reliable electricity is not just an essential part of daily life, but a God-given right. The Washington Post recently reported that Iranian demonstrators, protesting government mismanagement and corruption, chanted, “Water, electricity, life is our inherent right.”

If the citizens of an oppressive regime such as Iran’s can insist on such rights, should Americans be any less bold?

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.