Average folks who are in need of reliable and affordable energy sources during the COVID-19 pandemic are up against a “big green” machine that is burrowing into cities and municipalities.
While President Trump champions policies for affordable energy, Joe Biden is favoring restrictions on the use of fossil fuels that will impact local communities most in need of financial relief.
Biden recently unveiled a “clean energy plan” that calls for the United States to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. If elected, Biden would move to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2035, “make dramatic investments in energy efficiency buildings,” and accelerate the manufacturing of electric vehicles to achieve his net-zero goal, the plan explains.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas generates about 38% of electricity generation and coal another 23%, for a combined total of about 61% market share. Some have questioned if the true cost of such a radical upheaval of our energy system would exceed Biden’s proposed $2 trillion plan, all of which is expected to take place during Biden’s first four years in office.
The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit group that favors free market policies in the energy sector, finds that the Biden plan would only serve to exacerbate the economic fallout from COVID-19. The attempt to eliminate emissions from the power grid by 2035 “might be a renewables-only approach or a net-zero carbon dioxide emissions goal that would include nuclear energy and carbon-capture technology,” IER explains. “But Biden’s $2 trillion proposal is not a policy to recover from the devastation of the COVID-19 recession because the time goals are not consistent, and changing the energy portfolio of the nation is an extremely costly endeavor that requires reallocating labor, capital, and innovation.”
Others have pointed to the anticipated financial impact to families. Robert Bryce, author and documentary filmmaker on energy topics, points out that “Biden’s plan calls for expenditures equal to five times the amount that consumers and industry are now spending annually on electricity.” According to the EIA, the average monthly residential electric bill hovers around $120 per month. If Bryce’s predictions are accurate, that means consumers could see monthly bills of $600 or more, and that’s only for their household electricity consumption. Other anticipated increased energy costs would hit them in the wallet via transportation and other budgetary areas.
Meanwhile, Trump’s deregulation of the energy and other sectors has saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, according to a Heritage Foundation study and other studies. If he runs on unleashing American energy production at a time when it’s needed most, Trump could reverse current polling trends. In a key swing state such as Pennsylvania, where the natural gas boom has made a critical difference to the state’s economy, there’s an opportunity for Trump to put Biden back on his heels. During a primary debate in March, Biden said he would restrict the process of hydraulic fracturing, which is used to extract natural gas. Biden also said he would prevent drilling from occurring on federal lands. IER cites figures that show a fracking ban in Pennsylvania would cost 600,000 jobs and lower the state’s GDP by $261 billion.
So, there’s an opening here for Trump to highlight key differences between his position on energy and Biden’s. There’s also an opportunity to go a step further. The same local officials who have declined to protect public safety in the wake of violent riots are also pushing Biden-like green energy schemes that will raise energy costs on those who are already reeling from COVID-19. This could be a campaign issue. Tax records show that some of the largest, most well-endowed foundations in the country are funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into cities to advance climate change initiatives at odds with the public interest. City officials in San Francisco, Austin, and Denver have been on the receiving end of substantial donations in recent years for the stated purpose of pushing green energy schemes.
Big Green, a project of IER, is an online database that allows users to track the billions of dollars that foundations devoted to advocacy groups for the purpose of promoting adverse economic renewable energy schemes, climate litigation, and environmental regulations. The database was updated this month with 2017 tax records that include the donations to cities and counties.
As an example, in 2017 alone, the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors donated $33 million for climate change products. Their filings reveal these donations are “for use by 100 Resilient Cities toward the costs of building cities’ capacity globally to maintain and recover critical functions in the face of shocks and stresses, and to support their progress toward operational independence and sustainability.”
The Schmidt Family Foundation, based in Palo Alto, California, donated $100,000 in 2017 to the city and county of Denver to promote Denver’s electric vehicle marketing campaign. The foundation also donated $100,000 to the city of Austin, Texas, in 2017 to support “transportation electrification for low-income communities,” according to the financial records. Another major player here is the Troy, Michigan-based Kresge Foundation, which gave $120,000 to the city and county of San Francisco to implement an “energy use rating and disclosure system in San Francisco.”
Tom Pyle, the president of IER, encourages concerned citizens to make use of the findings in Big Green since it helps to explain why some government figures continue to advance regulatory burdens in challenging economic times. “The environmental Left likes to portray itself as a modern-day David battling the mighty fossil fuel giants in an epic struggle to save our dying planet,” he has said. “While it may be compelling, this narrative is simply false. The truth is the environmental Left is a deep-pocketed and powerful force in American politics that is working to stop all-natural gas, oil and coal production in the United States.”
One has to wonder why these philanthropic interests have given so heavily to cities, potentially circumventing the democratic process. After all, elected officials should be beholden to the interests of their constituency, not out of state foundations.
Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C., who writes for several national publications.
