Latest news with #NationalEnergyDominanceCouncil
E&E News
7 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
‘Black box': What exactly is Trump's energy council doing?
President Donald Trump launched a council to promote U.S. energy supremacy more than three months ago, but the advisory group remains an enigma. Some Trump supporters credit the National Energy Dominance Council for the administration's most high-profile energy moves, from fast-tracking environmental permits to expanding mining for critical minerals to seeking more offshore drilling. They also give it credit for other feats, such as lower U.S. gasoline prices. While some of Trump's executive orders pinpoint a specific role for the council, it's unclear how the body operates on a day-to-day basis and whether it has sought to drive policy or market changes. Advertisement Since mid-February, the panel has seen its executive director come and go, and the White House has not detailed who works at the council or said how often the members all come together. Trump issued an executive order creating the council on Feb. 14, as well as a related fact sheet. The council doesn't appear to have a website. 'It's not clear exactly what [the council's] functions are,' said Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. The president publicly discussed the National Energy Dominance Council in February at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by the new council's leaders: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright. The president's executive order designates the Interior head as the council's chair and the Energy secretary as the vice chair. In addition, it lists 17 other spots on the council, from the U.S. trade representative to the Defense secretary. 'We're going to be energy dominant like nobody else,' the president said at the February event. The council is supposed to provide Trump with a 'recommended National Energy Dominance Strategy' that's built on cutting 'unnecessary' regulation and boosting private sector investment in 'all sectors of the energy-producing economy,' according to the executive order. In it, Trump gave marching orders to the council for its first 100 days with actions it 'shall' take. The council has now been around for about 100 days. According to the order, the council must recommend a plan to Trump to 'raise awareness on a national level of matters related to energy dominance' and advise Trump on actions each agency can take to grow production — like 'rapidly facilitating' approvals for energy infrastructure and approving the construction of natural gas pipelines into or in New England, California, Alaska and other regions. The White House did not tell POLITICO's E&E News what specific pipelines it would like to see built, although Trump has signaled he wants to see the revival of the Constitution pipeline — which was canceled in 2020 but has been discussed as a new link between Pennsylvania and upstate New York. Ben Dietderich, a DOE spokesperson, said expanding pipeline infrastructure in the Northeast and across the United States is a top priority for the administration. The region has long had expensive energy because of inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity, he said. 'The department will continue working closely with the White House and the entire National Energy Dominance Council to advance President Trump's agenda and secure America's energy future, this includes by advocating for the construction of additional energy infrastructure, such as pipelines,' Dietderich said in a statement. The White House has also thrown its support behind the planned Alaska LNG project, including an 807-mile pipeline that would run from the state's North Slope to its south. Burgum, Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin are set to visit Alaska next month to appear on a panel with Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy about energy issues. Burgum and Wright traveled to Louisiana in March, where they spoke at an event at Venture Global's Plaquemines LNG terminal. Their remarks focused on cutting red tape and boosting U.S. exports of the supercooled gas. EPA has also sought to present a different focus under Trump. 'Administrator Zeldin has worked diligently to drive economic growth by unleashing energy dominance, pursuing permitting reform, and bolstering energy security through commonsense policies and actions to bring back reliable forms of energy production while ensuring clean air, land, and water for every American,' said Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokesperson, in a statement. In addition to the Alaska summit, Zeldin will also be visiting EPA's Region 10 operations center and holding meetings with elected officials, Vaseliou said. Offices of governors in Alaska, California, New York and New England did not return requests for comment. The office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, declined to comment. 'Direct action' Burgum has the top spot at the energy dominance council, but the Interior Department did not answer questions last week about who staffs the council, how often it meets or what policy items it is focused on. 'Since President Trump established the National Energy Dominance Council, prices for many goods and services have seen steady declines,' Interior spokesperson Elizabeth Peace said in a statement. Peace said the council 'is championing the President's Energy Dominance agenda by delivering big wins, real savings, and unstoppable growth for the American people.' Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has worked on issues such as the licensing of deepwater ports to pipeline safety, his department said in a statement. Beyond Cabinet-level positions, the council is filled with at least seven other economic and security advisers, including Robin Colwell, Stephen Miran and Stephen Miller, based on a list of titles included in Trump's February order. Colwell is deputy director of the White House National Economic Council and deputy assistant to the president for economic policy. The Senate confirmed Miran in March as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Miller is the White House deputy chief of staff for policy. Trump has yet to nominate the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Katherine Scarlett is chief of staff at CEQ. CEQ is committed to working with the energy dominance council to 'advance President Trump's agenda to make America energy dominant,' the office said in a statement. CEQ pointed to the recent creation of a permitting innovation center as an example of efforts to eliminate 'red tape' and update permitting technology. Among the energy dominance council's staffers is Brittany Kelm, who started earlier this month a senior policy adviser within the Executive Office of the President, according to a LinkedIn post. Kelm is an alum of oil and gas companies Shell and Valero. Another staffer is William Doffermyre, according to a LinkedIn post. DOE did not respond to requests for comment about the National Energy Dominance Council. The State Department referred E&E News to the White House, which did not answer questions about the council's actions and future. Jeremy Harrell, CEO of the conservative clean energy group ClearPath, said the council is going to be less about reports and more about 'direct action' that agencies can take to further Trump's energy dominance agenda. 'I think we saw that in the critical minerals [executive order], where it was highlighting multiple actions across agencies that they had the ability to use executive authority to push forward,' he said. Harrell said the council seems to be taking an approach of pursuing near-term opportunities, such as the Trump administration's push for projects of 'national significance' — like advanced reactor demonstration projects at DOE — as well as growing American energy supply chains. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, said she'd like to see the council follow the models of the National Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council, 'which coordinate policies across Cabinet agencies without putting out reports.' Success for the council can be attributed to the body's 'convening power, as it brings together diverse stakeholders,' said Brigham McCown, senior fellow and the director at the Hudson Institute's Initiative on American Energy Security. He said it's 'too early to identify shortcomings,' given the relative newness of the group and its work. But he recommended a 'strong sense of urgency to their mission, as we are years behind in successfully addressing our looming energy deficits.' 'Not particularly transparent' While 'energy dominance' is frequently mentioned by the administration, energy analysts said the daily operations of the advisory council are kept behind the curtain. 'It's not particularly transparent,' said Pielke Jr. with the American Enterprise Institute. He argued that the opaque nature of the council is characteristic of the Trump administration generally, where it is not clear how choices and policy development actually happen. 'The processes that normally function [in an administration] are different,' Pielke Jr. said. 'It's just kind of a black box.' Pielke Jr. said that coordinating energy policy across agencies is a viable idea to address a complex issue. But he said he's been disappointed with the administration's pursuit of policy primarily through executive orders, which he said have less staying power than legislation. He said that's particularly true with long-term projects like pipelines, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure projects that take years to build. 'The administration is not going to have a lasting impact on energy policy despite the rhetoric if it doesn't engage Congress in legislative activity,' he said. The House passed a major Trump-backed budget reconciliation bill last week. The legislation — which still needs Senate approval — includes measures such as faster phase-downs of certain production and investment credits for renewable energy and speeding up reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. Piekle Jr. said the whipsaw of policy priorities between Democratic and Republican administrations, leaves developers with uncertain choices in the face of unstable policy and urged the administration to focus on congressional action. ClearPath's Harrell said executive orders, such as the one on critical minerals, showcase the council's coordination. He pointed to the multiagency nature of the order. 'You're seeing those as central administration positions because the energy dominance council is about bringing those folks together and putting forth a strategic plan,' Harrell said. Ellen Wald, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center, said she hopes the dominance council focuses on developing a strategic reserve for critical minerals, long-term planning for energy infrastructure projects and setting deadlines for replacing canceled rules and regulations from the Biden administration. She said the partisanship that now pervades federal rulemaking means that policies are reversed from one administration to the next, and it usually takes months or years for the new administration to implement a replacement rule. 'If you don't have faith that the regulations that you started following are going to be the same ones that are there, it's really, really challenging,' Wald said. Even if rules are going to impose stringent requirements on industry, she said, it's easier for companies to operate if the requirements are consistent. 'Most energy infrastructure projects are going to take more than four years [to build],' she said. David Hill, executive vice president of energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, said building energy infrastructure should be a 'top priority' for the council and Congress. Supporters say the council is functioning in a way that Trump would want. 'President Trump made it pretty clear, and so did Secretary Burgum, that all of the energy issues from all of the different departments and agencies are funneling up to his energy dominance council,' said Carla Sands, vice chair of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute and a former ambassador to Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Businessman Has to Tell Trump What's in the Order He's Signing
Donald Trump signed executive orders on Friday, but one key moment suggested the president had no idea what was in the papers he was about to sign. Trump was seated in the Oval Office, preparing to sign the orders impacting the nuclear energy industry, when he invited business leaders in attendance to say a few words. The first person to speak was Joseph Dominquez, the president and CEO of Constellation. Dominquez brought up how the industry has faced regulatory delays. He complained they are spending too much time on permitting. That's when Trump turned in his seat and asked Dominquez a question about what was in his executive order. 'Are we doing something about the regulatory in here?' Trump asked, nodding to the executive order sitting on the desk in front of him. Several business leaders standing around him were quick to chime in that his order did address the regulations while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also responded, 'You are, sir.' Trump has regularly hosted gatherings in the Oval Office to sign executive orders since taking office, where his team explains what is in each bill as they hand them over for his signature. However, it was a telling moment that suggested the president had not read the order on Friday in advance, prompting the business executive at the White House to quickly step in and explain. Dominquez addressed the reporters and cameras directly while acknowledging the order targets regulation. 'That issue I just described will be addressed in this EO, and many other issues that we don't have time with the president to cover,' Dominquez said, gesturing to the order on the desk. Trump followed up to ask if he would say they've 'contemplated just about everything, right?' Dominquez went on to praise the president's creation of a National Energy Dominance Council, which was included in an executive order signed in February. Trump praised the nuclear industry as a 'hot industry. It's a brilliant industry. You have to do it right.' Later in the event, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf went through and explained each of the orders to Trump as he went through and signed them just has he has done in other EO signing ceremonies. In total, the president signed four executive orders aimed at easing regulations and expanding nuclear energy production.
Boston Globe
18-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Trump says the solution to high New England energy costs is a natural gas pipeline project. It's not nearly that simple.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now, Trump has made the Constitution Pipeline a priority and Advertisement Most of the region's governors want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels such as natural gas and use more clean, renewable energy. But Trump has made that transition more difficult, especially by halting offshore wind projects, and the governors of New York and Connecticut have Advertisement Governors of other Northeast states, notably Massachusetts, haven't publicly indicated much interest. 'The issue that we have in New England is that for a few days of the year prices are high, maybe seven days,' Massachusetts Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper said at a recent energy-affordability event. 'You don't build a gigantic pipeline for seven days a year.' Healey has taken an 'all of the above' approach to energy, emphasizing all sources. On Tuesday, she proposed energy legislation that she said would save state ratepayers $10 billion over the next decade. But her plan did not include boosting the availability of natural gas. As governor and before that as attorney general, Healey has pushed to wean Massachusetts off of fossil fuels. The state also is required under law to effectively eliminate emissions by mid-century, which would be difficult with the use of more natural gas. Asked about the Constitution Pipeline, her spokesperson, Karissa Hand, said, 'Governor Healey will review any energy proposals through the lens of whether they would lower costs and move us toward energy independence.' Trump has his own idea for how to accomplishing those goals and it can be summed up in three words: drill baby drill. On his first day in office, he declared a national energy emergency to increase the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. At the same time, Trump halted all new permits for wind farms pending a federal review. Advertisement An executive order creating the National Energy Dominance Council specifically called for 'approving the construction of natural gas pipelines to, or in, New England.' And Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently predicted it was 'quite likely' construction on the Constitution Pipeline would start before the end of the year, after Trump publicly threatened 'to use the extraordinary powers of the federal government to get it done.' 'The Northeast has long had the most expensive energy in the country due to the inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity in the region, leaving it vulnerable to price spikes and system reliability issues.... Expanding pipeline infrastructure in the Northeast and across the country is a top priority,' an Energy Department spokesperson said in a statement to the Globe. He would not comment specifically on the Constitution Pipeline. A spokesman for Williams Cos., the principal partner behind the Constitution Pipeline, did not respond to an email request for comment. There is a good business case to be made for the Constitution pipeline because it would move low-cost natural gas to a high-demand area, said Marc Montalvo, president of Daymark Energy Advisors, a Worcester-based consulting firm. At the same time, Montalvo said that although natural gas produces carbon emissions, it's preferable to oil when more environmentally friendly options such as wind power have been stalled by the Trump administration. 'If the alternative were wind and solar, there's not an environmental upside,' he said. 'But with the delays and the cancellations of offshore wind, it looks like there might be more years of oil burn in the offing. So maybe gas is not such a bad thing after all.' But the project would take three to five years to complete, and require work on other infrastructure to get the additional gas into existing pipelines into New England, Montalvo said. Advertisement 'There's a lot of stars that would have to align for all of this to go forward,' he said. The 124-mile pipeline was proposed in 2012 to deliver natural gas from hydraulic fracking shale fields in Pennsylvania to an interconnection point in eastern New York that supplies the state and New England. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the project two years later but environmentalists, Joseph LaRusso, manager of the Clean Grid Program at the Acadia Center, an advocacy group working to cut Northeast carbon emissions in half by 2030, said building the pipeline now would probably cost $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion. 'While the conversation around pipelines has become resurgent again in the wake of this cold winter and concerns about affordability, there really is no indication that any increase in interstate gas transmission pipeline capacity into New England would make a difference in terms of prices,' he said, noting that prices have not moderated despite the region's pipeline capacity increasing by 51 percent since 2014. Advertisement Spokespeople for the two biggest utilities in Massachusetts, Eversource and National Grid, said they were open to expanded access to energy supply but did not take a position on the Constitution Pipeline. Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington, D.C., research firm, said he could envision a deal in which New York agrees to Constitution Pipeline approval in exchange for the Trump administration allowing some wind projects to resume. New York Governor Kathy Hochul met with Trump at the White House in March after he had publicly stated his support for the Constitution Pipeline. A Hochul spokesperson said at the time it was 'a productive conversation and we look forward to continuing the dialogue in the coming weeks.' There have been no developments since and Hochul's office did not respond to a request for comment. Book acknowledged it's unusual for a project ditched by its own developers to be under consideration again five years later. But a new administration and rising energy costs in the Northeast have had an impact. 'The facts on the ground have changed,' he said. Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US would assess nuclear waste, plutonium for reactor fuel under draft order
By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Nuclear waste and radioactive plutonium would be assessed as a fuel for reactors under a draft executive order being considered by the administration of President Donald Trump on expanding nuclear power, moves opposed by nonproliferation experts. The Trump administration is considering four draft executive orders, which were seen by Reuters and marked deliberative and pre-decisional, on expanding nuclear power. The United States was the first developer of nuclear power but the energy source is now growing the fastest in China. The draft orders were first reported by Axios. Directives in one of the orders for the assessment of the reprocessing of nuclear waste, also known as spent nuclear fuel, and for using highly radioactive plutonium for fuel, have not been previously reported. One of the orders, called Ushering in a Nuclear Renaissance, calls for the U.S. secretary of energy within 90 days of the president signing it to give the head of the National Energy Dominance Council an "assessment of legal considerations relevant to ensure the efficient transfer of spent fuel from reactors to a commercial recycling facility." The orders also seek to boost the administration's control over approvals of nuclear power projects currently handled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent panel with five members. It is uncertain if the orders will make it to Trump's desk, but the issue of expanding nuclear power is a priority for many officials in the administration as U.S. demand for electricity booms for the first time in two decades due to the growth in data centers needed for artificial intelligence. The White House and the Energy Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The National Nuclear Security Administration said it had no comment on draft policy. The order calls for assessing the ability to transfer any waste from reprocessing for disposal deep underground. Nuclear nonproliferation experts have long opposed reprocessing, or recycling of nuclear waste, saying its supply chain could be a target for militants seeking materials for use in a crude nuclear bomb. Building such plants in the United States would legitimize their use in other countries, increasing the risks of proliferation, they say. "It is unfortunate that the Trump administration apparently wants to revive the discredited idea of reprocessing commercial spent fuel, which is the worst possible way to manage nuclear waste," said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. There are more than 90,000 tonnes of nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants across the country and lawmakers from both major political parties and industry have seen it as a possible way to cut dependency on Russia and other suppliers of uranium. France and other countries have reprocessed nuclear waste by breaking it down into uranium and plutonium and reusing it to make new reactor fuel. A U.S. supply chain would likely be far longer than in those countries making it potentially more accessible to militants, nonproliferation experts say. Former President Gerald Ford halted reprocessing in 1976, citing proliferation concerns. Former President Ronald Reagan lifted the moratorium in 1981, but high costs have prevented plants from opening. The order also calls for the energy secretary to halt a surplus plutonium "dilute and dispose" program and replace it with an initiative to make the highly radioactive material available to industry for making fuel for high-tech reactors. Plutonium is a proliferation risk and is also radiologically and chemically toxic. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a hearing in the House of Representatives on May 7 that storage of nuclear waste at commercial reactors across the country has been a mistake for 50 years and a "growing liability." Wright said that one day before the hearing, reprocessing was discussed between department officials and a White House representative. Wright said the Energy Department will issue a study soon on reprocessing.
Reuters
15-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US would assess nuclear waste, plutonium for reactor fuel under draft order
WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - Nuclear waste and radioactive plutonium would be assessed as a fuel for reactors under a draft executive order being considered by the administration of President Donald Trump on expanding nuclear power, moves opposed by nonproliferation experts. The Trump administration is considering four draft executive orders, which were seen by Reuters and marked deliberative and pre-decisional, on expanding nuclear power. The United States was the first developer of nuclear power but the energy source is now growing the fastest in China. The draft orders were first reported by Axios. Directives in one of the orders for the assessment of the reprocessing of nuclear waste, also known as spent nuclear fuel, and for using highly radioactive plutonium for fuel, have not been previously reported. One of the orders, called Ushering in a Nuclear Renaissance, calls for the U.S. secretary of energy within 90 days of the president signing it to give the head of the National Energy Dominance Council an "assessment of legal considerations relevant to ensure the efficient transfer of spent fuel from reactors to a commercial recycling facility." The orders also seek to boost the administration's control over approvals of nuclear power projects currently handled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent panel with five members. It is uncertain if the orders will make it to Trump's desk, but the issue of expanding nuclear power is a priority for many officials in the administration as U.S. demand for electricity booms for the first time in two decades due to the growth in data centers needed for artificial intelligence. The White House and the Energy Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The National Nuclear Security Administration said it had no comment on draft policy. The order calls for assessing the ability to transfer any waste from reprocessing for disposal deep underground. Nuclear nonproliferation experts have long opposed reprocessing, or recycling of nuclear waste, saying its supply chain could be a target for militants seeking materials for use in a crude nuclear bomb. Building such plants in the United States would legitimize their use in other countries, increasing the risks of proliferation, they say. "It is unfortunate that the Trump administration apparently wants to revive the discredited idea of reprocessing commercial spent fuel, which is the worst possible way to manage nuclear waste," said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. There are more than 90,000 tonnes of nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants across the country and lawmakers from both major political parties and industry have seen it as a possible way to cut dependency on Russia and other suppliers of uranium. France and other countries have reprocessed nuclear waste by breaking it down into uranium and plutonium and reusing it to make new reactor fuel. A U.S. supply chain would likely be far longer than in those countries making it potentially more accessible to militants, nonproliferation experts say. Former President Gerald Ford halted reprocessing in 1976, citing proliferation concerns. Former President Ronald Reagan lifted the moratorium in 1981, but high costs have prevented plants from opening. The order also calls for the energy secretary to halt a surplus plutonium "dilute and dispose" program and replace it with an initiative to make the highly radioactive material available to industry for making fuel for high-tech reactors. Plutonium is a proliferation risk and is also radiologically and chemically toxic. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a hearing in the House of Representatives on May 7 that storage of nuclear waste at commercial reactors across the country has been a mistake for 50 years and a "growing liability." Wright said that one day before the hearing, reprocessing was discussed between department officials and a White House representative. Wright said the Energy Department will issue a study soon on reprocessing.
