A recently published report highlights the growing cost of the Biden administration’s energy policies for American citizens.
The report, released by U.S. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., asserts that Biden’s energy policies have led to higher costs for Americans and have negatively impacted the economy.
Comer issued a statement where he criticized the Biden Administration for utilizing the power of the executive branch to target American energy production. He expressed concern that this approach could solidify radical, left-leaning energy policies that have the potential to hinder domestic energy development, strain the power grid, and increase costs for American consumers and businesses.
President Joe Biden has faced criticism for several reasons, including his recent decision to pause liquefied natural gas exports, the resulting increase in gas prices, and his strong emphasis on transitioning to electric energy.
According to analysis from the right-leaning American Action Forum, released in April, Comer’s office highlights that Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed 38 new rules and finalized 63 rules as of the end of April 2024. These rules, totaling 33,138 pages, are projected to incur a cost of over a trillion dollars on the U.S. economy.
The report also emphasizes the financial impact of shifting America’s energy demands more towards the electric grid.
According to the report:
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that even with improved use efficiency, the demand for electricity generated by U.S. utilities will continue to grow at an average annual rate of one percent through 2050. However, the Biden Administration has implemented radical policies and regulations aimed at transforming power generation and electricity markets. These initiatives involve replacing highly reliable and affordable existing energy sources with new ones that are typically less reliable and more expensive. As a result, consumers can expect higher utility bills, increased costs for goods and services that rely on electricity, and additional energy subsidy costs hidden within income and other taxes. Furthermore, high electricity prices may also lead to economic costs as some business opportunities move overseas.
The White House has highlighted climate change concerns as it introduced a range of policies, one of which involves temporarily halting the development of new liquefied natural gas export sites.
The decision to pause LNG has sparked significant controversy, leading to a coalition of state and Congressional leaders gathering opposition against it. In fact, a coalition of states has even filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the decision.
The decision by Biden’s Department of Energy has been defended, with emphasis on the fact that it will not impact any ongoing sales. The White House has further justified the move by highlighting the United States’ current position as a leading exporter, rendering new sales unnecessary.
The Department of Energy (DOE) defended its decision by stating that it is committed to a transparent process before making any new LNG export decisions. The DOE emphasized the importance of using the latest economic and environmental analyses in order to determine whether additional approvals of LNG exports to non-FTA countries are in the public interest.
Critics have raised concerns about federal spending on climate-related initiatives.
During a recent news conference, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, made a startling revelation. She brought attention to the fact that federal funds were allocated to a climate group that had openly supported the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. This attack involved despicable acts such as rape, the killing of innocent children, and the taking of hostages.
Referring to a pro-Hamas photo reportedly discovered on the website, she expressed her astonishment at the fact that our taxpayer dollars are being allocated to organizations like Climate Justice Alliance.
Last week, lawmakers questioned Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s Secretary of Energy, regarding his energy policies, coinciding with Comer’s reports.
According to federal data, energy costs have risen over 35% since Biden took office, and Republicans have criticized him for the increased financial burden it has placed on Americans.
Granholm, during the hearing, stood up for her agency’s efforts, including Biden’s move to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve earlier in his term as a means of tackling the surging gas prices.
According to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, the Administration is dedicated to upholding a strong and efficient Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In 2022, in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent oil market disruptions, the President authorized the sale of 180 million barrels. Granholm emphasized in her written testimony submitted to the committee that these emergency sales ensured a stable supply and served as a temporary solution until domestic production could be ramped up. Ultimately, this strategy helped alleviate the burden of rising costs for American households.