Trump 2.0: The Senate Energy Committee and Members
Senator Mike Lee takes the helm of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Along with winning the Presidency, Republicans also won the Senate, albeit by slim margins (52 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 independents that typically vote with Democrats, and 1 vacancy in Ohio). In addition to taking the Senate leadership positions, Republicans also took control of the leadership positions of every Senate committee. From the energy sector’s perspective, the primary Senate committee is the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which is now chaired by Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
Mike Lee was elected to the US Senate in 2010, where the key issues he ran on were the size of the US government, the need for a flat-tax system for the US, and term limits for members of Congress (2 terms for senators, and 6 for representatives). Lee won re-election in 2016 (68.15% vs 27.06% for his Democratic opponent) and in 2022 (53.15% vs 42.74% for his independent opponent). Prior to Congress, Lee worked as both a private attorney and in government specializing appellate cases and US Supreme Court litigation, focusing on energy industry matters. Lee has consistently voted on the conservative side of the issue, with endorsements from The American Conservative Union, and the Heritage Foundation.
Positions on Energy and the Environment
A good preview on the philosophy of Mike Lee’s Senate Energy Committee will approach energy matters can be gained from a statement early in his confirmation hearing:
“Over the past four years, (this) administration has dismantled domestic energy production, canceled leases, and weaponized regulations to discourage investment in pipelines and critical energy infrastructure. Instead of unleashing American energy, this administration has instead decided to reduce our access to energy,” Lee said. “These failures have caused devastating harm.”
While not as succinct or punchy as “Drill baby drill”, Lee’s statement clearly lays out an agenda of prioritizing the development of energy resources in and around the US.
Mike Lee replaces (recent) independent Joe Manchin (W. Virginia) as the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. Manchin is known for his support of the coal industry, which in spite of his efforts and those of the coal industry, continues to shrink. Lee, with the Senate, House of Representatives, and White House in the hands of Republicans, is expected to push even harder for new exploration of fossil fuel resources. He famously stated on X (formerly Twitter) last March that “I’m for clean energy. That’s why I support coal and natural gas.”, implying that both are sources of clean energy.
Lee has also previously implied that fossil fuels (particularly coal) are a more economical form of energy than renewables. This is in spite of a number of studies which have shown that most coal plants in the US cost more to operate than it would cost to replace them with renewable energy solutions. A recent study by Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC and the University of California Berkeley illustrates this situation well. They compared the operating and maintenance costs of all the coal plants in the US to the all-in costs of replacing them with renewable energy sources, including battery energy storage. The study found that between 97% and 99% of the coal plants would be more expensive to operate than to replace. Regardless of the significant issues with renewables (large physical footprint, need for battery energy storage to provide energy during periods of non-production), it is clear that coal makes less and less sense economically versus the alternatives, and that in the long term it will likely fade out of the US energy picture.
Support for Trump’s Choice for Energy Secretary
Mike Lee has also been strongly supportive of Donald Trump’s choice for the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Chris Wright (see our article on Chris Wright from last week). Lee praised Wright’s appearance at his confirmation hearing last week, stating that he and the rest of Congress will help Wright “get the nation’s energy sector growing again” by making changes in federal laws. Lee is focused particularly on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which he said was “never intended to be something that would delay projects for years, often decades.” It is generally true that the time to approve and complete infrastructure projects in the US is (on average) longer than the timelines for similar projects in Europe, simply changing federal laws and regulations alone will not fix this issue.
Many of the issues with these projects are due to state and local approval and inspection requirements, as well as the way most of these projects are funded (year-by-year federal block grants, which are then administered by local governments). Additionally, our common-law heritage also results in highly-complex contracts for public works projects. This legal framework, which we also share with Great Britain, is one of the reasons why both the US and Great Britain are very inefficient in the creation and economics of public works projects.
Summary: Fixing These Issues Likely Harder Than It Appears
The problems above are generally irrespective of partisan issues, or which approach to energy you believe in. More importantly, addressing these issues will require close (and non-partisan) efforts across federal, state, and local governments, something that the previous Trump administration (and a lot of ones before him) didn’t necessarily excel at. For all of our sake, focusing on fixing this framework is probably more important than arguing about which power source makes the most sense for all of us.