Connect with us

Energy

‘Take On The Resistance’: Who Could Trump Tap To Help Cement His ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Agenda?

Published

13 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Former President Donald Trump has promised to revitalize and unleash the American energy sector if he returns to the White House in 2025, and has a plethora of former officials and new faces he could tap for key executive branch roles.

The Biden administration has utilized executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to implement many of the key policies driving its sprawling climate agenda. These agencies will be crucial to any effort by a prospective Trump administration to undo President Joe Biden’s energy legacy and execute Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda.

Several insiders with extensive experience in Republican energy politics speculated to the Daily Caller News Foundation as to who Trump could pick to lead that charge if he wins in November.

“I am really impressed by the number of former Trump officials, as well as people who have not served before who are also interested in doing so in the future who have reached out to inquire about my prior experience or the process,” David Bernhardt, who served as the secretary of the interior during the latter half of Trump’s first term, told the DCNF. “If President Trump wins, he’s going to have droves of capable people to choose from to fill his political appointments this time around — a lot of seasoned veterans, and also a lot of people with new, fresh ideas. I think that’s very exciting and bodes well for the president’s second term and for our country.”

However, the Trump campaign told the DCNF that internal discussions about who may fill these roles have not started.

“There have been no such discussions about who will serve in a second Trump Administration,” Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told the DCNF. “When the time comes, President Trump will choose the best possible people to implement his America First agenda.”

Whoever Trump selects to lead the EPA will have to confront an agency that has been juiced with thousands of new employees and promulgated numerous major regulations. The Biden administration has used the EPA to advance some of its most aggressive environmental policies, which include a major green power plants regulation, electric vehicle (EV) mandates, stringent fine particulate matter emissions rules and more.

At least some of these rules figure to be on the chopping block if Trump returns to office, as the former president has already pledged to walk back EV regulations.

Andrew Wheeler, who helmed the agency between 2019 and 2021, could be tapped to take the reins again if Trump wins in November, one energy expert, who wishes to not be publicly identified, speculated to the DCNF.

Others who may be under consideration include Mandy Gunasekara, who served variously as EPA chief of staff, principal deputy assistant administrator and senior policy advisor during Trump’s first term.

“I have a beautiful community in Oxford, Mississippi, and it would be very hard to leave. Plus, the idea of going back into a hostile situation away from my children and the ‘Bible girls’ is hard pill to pill to swallow. Ultimately, that’s a bridge I’ll cross if I get there,” Gunasekara told the DCNF. “Andrew Wheeler is a very experienced leader at EPA and would no doubt faithfully execute the President’s agenda again.”

Myron Ebell, a recently-retired energy policy expert formerly at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a member of the Trump EPA transition team, believes that Gunasekara and Wheeler “would both be great choices,” he told the DCNF.

“I think it’s inappropriate to discuss a position I may be offered,” Wheeler told the DCNF when contacted for this story.

Another name to watch is Anne Vogel, who currently runs the Ohio EPA, according to the energy expert. Prior to taking that role, Vogel worked for the American Electric Power Company, handling federal regulatory matters in Washington, and she also has experience working at a private law firm.

“Director Anne Vogel currently has no intention of leaving her position at Ohio EPA,” a spokesperson for the agency told the DCNF.

Notably, Vogel testified to Congress in March 2023 about the train derailment and subsequent chemical burn-off that marred the skies of East Palestine, Ohio, in February 2023.

“I think that we’re going to need people that are committed to reforming these agencies and advancing the Trump agenda, which is basically unleashing the energy sector, and that includes the coal industry, oil and gas and everything else,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow for the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and a former member of the Trump EPA transition team, told the DCNF. “They’ve got to be willing to take on the resistance. And in Trump one, people weren’t necessarily willing or prepared to take on the resistance, and there’s going to be a lot of resistance.” 

‘Full Speed Ahead’

As the agency in charge of managing America’s federally-controlled lands and waters, DOI has a major role to play in the American energy sector given that it leases millions of onshore and offshore acres to oil and gas developers. Under Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, DOI has taken numerous actions to restrict development on millions of acres of American land and issued a bare-bones leasing schedule for offshore oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

In light of Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill,” the DOI’s approach to natural resource management is likely to change dramatically from its current attitude as part of the Biden administration.

Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, told the DCNF to keep an eye on Republican Govs. Mike Dunleavy of Alaska and Doug Burgum of North Dakota as possible leaders of DOI under a prospective second Trump presidency. However, Burgum may be in play for other positions, such as secretary of the interior or perhaps a high-level White House role, Pyle told the DCNF.

A representative for Burgum referred the DCNF to the Trump campaign.

Both McKenna and Ebell indicated that Bernhardt could be a good fit to return to the top job at DOI should he and Trump have mutual interest. For his part, Bernhardt declined to comment about whether he wants to get back into the fray or specific roles he would ostensibly have interest in filling during a second Trump term.

Pyle said he does not expect Trump to feel an obligation to stick to the establishment when selecting his political appointees.

“It’s clear with President Trump’s vice presidential pick [J.D. Vance] that he no longer feels compelled to extend an olive branch to the GOP establishment,” Pyle told the DCNF. “It’s Trump’s party now, and he chose someone who he thinks will best help implement his agenda.”

Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist with extensive energy sector experience, agreed that Dunleavy and Burgum could each be the type of person to run the DOI for Trump if called upon to do so.

“I hope they will go full speed ahead on restoring or increasing energy production in the federal estate” regardless of who Trump might pick for the top job if he wins, Ebell told the DCNF. “But I also hope that they will focus and put some effort into improving federal land management.”

Ebell floated former Alaska Republican Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell as a possibility should he have interest. He also said that Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah would both do well in the position, in his view, but that they may both be too valuable as seasoned legislators to make the jump to the executive branch.

“Senator Barrasso is focused on working for the people of Wyoming and passing President Trump’s agenda in the U.S. Senate,” a Barrasso spokesperson told the DCNF.

‘Dark Horse’

Choosing a successor for Jennifer Granholm to lead the DOE will be another key decision for Trump should he prevail this November.

Among other initiatives, the Biden DOE has pushed regulations promoting energy efficient appliances, a broad building decarbonization agenda and sought to loan huge sums of taxpayer cash to green energy companies since 2021.

McKenna, who is plugged into both the energy industry and GOP politics, flagged several possible candidates to look out for.

Paul Dabbar, who served as the under secretary for science at DOE during Trump’s first term, could be an option, with McKenna pointing to his managerial skills as a strength that could appeal to Trump. Dabbar declined to comment when contacted for this story.

McKenna also identified Burgum as a possible option for DOE, but like Pyle, McKenna believes that Burgum could be called on to take any number of roles, stretching from DOE to the White House or even the Department of Commerce, should he have interest in serving in a possible second Trump administration.

One “dark horse” possibility to watch is Bill Cooper, who currently works for Golden Pass LNG as vice president and general counsel, McKenna said. In addition to his private sector mettle, Cooper has experience at DOE, having served in the agency for about two years in various senior roles during Trump’s first term, making him a possible candidate should he have interest in the gig.

Ebell is not discounting the possibility that Trump may dip into the private sector to find his potential energy secretary.

“I think looking in the private sector makes sense,” Ebell told the DCNF. “It makes a lot of sense if it’s somebody who isn’t part of the subsidy chain, who isn’t part of the corporate welfare world, special interests who get money under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, or other DOE programs.”

Cooper, Treadwell, Lee’s office and Dunleavy’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more. 

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Continue Reading

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.

Continue Reading

Trending

X