The Impact of Donald Trump or Kamala Harris on the Renewable Energy Sector in the 2024 Election
The 2024 U.S. presidential election will have a significant impact on many sectors, including renewable energy. With Donald Trump and Kamala Harris representing different approaches to energy policy, the future direction of renewable energy in the U.S. will largely depend on the outcome of the election. Both candidates have distinct perspectives that could influence the sector's growth and trajectory. This article examines how their potential election might affect the renewable energy industry, considering both the benefits and trade-offs of each approach.
Donald Trump’s Energy Policy and Renewable Energy
Donald Trump’s energy strategy, based on his previous presidency (2017–2021), was characterized by strong support for fossil fuel industries, regulatory rollbacks, and a focus on "energy dominance." His policies aimed to bolster traditional energy sectors, while renewable energy development was deprioritized. If re-elected, Trump is likely to continue favoring conventional energy sources.
1. Fostering Energy Independence and Fossil Fuels
Trump has been a vocal advocate for the expansion of domestic oil, gas, and coal production, emphasizing energy independence. His administration worked to reduce regulations that could hinder the development of fossil fuel projects, such as oil pipelines and natural gas drilling.
Potential Benefits: Advocates for this approach argue that it strengthens U.S. energy security by reducing reliance on foreign energy imports. It may also support jobs in traditional energy sectors, particularly in regions where coal, oil, and gas are major industries. For states dependent on these industries, a Trump presidency may provide economic stability and job retention.
2. Regulatory Reductions
During his first term, Trump’s administration rolled back numerous environmental regulations, including carbon emissions standards, with the intent of making energy production more cost-effective. These rollbacks reduced operational costs for fossil fuel companies and aimed to stimulate economic growth.
Potential Benefits: For businesses in the energy sector, reducing regulatory burdens can lower costs and increase profitability. This approach could be seen as encouraging economic development, especially for industries that rely heavily on traditional energy. Supporters argue that deregulation provides flexibility for companies and enhances their ability to compete globally.
3. Limited Government Intervention in Energy Markets
Trump’s policies leaned toward reducing government involvement in energy markets, allowing market forces to drive energy production and consumption decisions.
Potential Benefits: Proponents of this market-driven approach suggest that energy prices may remain lower and more stable, benefiting consumers and businesses alike. Additionally, it encourages innovation within the fossil fuel industry, such as developments in cleaner coal technologies or more efficient oil extraction methods.
It is our belief that Trump may be motivated to keep renewable energy subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act, since these support renewable energy projects in "red" states. This is despite the anti-renewable rhetoric. Also, Trump supports facilitating permitting and development (at the expense of the environment) which could actually help renewable projects move faster.
While Trump’s rhetoric has often leaned heavily towards fossil fuel support and skepticism of climate policies, the economic benefits of renewable energy projects in "red" states could shape his stance differently. Many of these states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas, have seen significant economic growth from wind, solar, and biofuel investments.
Keeping subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could align with Trump’s focus on job creation and local economic growth, especially in rural areas that benefit from these projects. Additionally, his emphasis on reducing permitting barriers and fast-tracking infrastructure could inadvertently favor renewable energy development alongside fossil fuels.
By making it easier for large-scale projects to get built, whether they involve oil pipelines or wind farms, these policies could accelerate the deployment of new energy technologies. If Trump sees political or economic value in boosting local economies—even with renewables—it may result in a nuanced approach that diverges from his public stance. This suggests that practical economic considerations and local support could outweigh ideological opposition to clean energy subsidies.
Kamala Harris’s Energy Policy and Renewable Energy
Kamala Harris, currently serving as Vice President, advocates for a progressive energy policy focused on climate action and a shift toward renewable energy. Her platform emphasizes reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding clean energy infrastructure, and addressing climate change through large-scale investments in green technologies. If elected, Harris is expected to advance policies that prioritize renewable energy development.
1. Climate Action and Renewable Energy Expansion
Harris has consistently supported policies that align with addressing climate change, such as co-sponsoring the Green New Deal. She envisions a future where renewable energy—solar, wind, and battery storage—plays a central role in the U.S. energy mix.
Potential Benefits: Supporters of Harris’s approach argue that it will accelerate the growth of the renewable energy sector, leading to job creation in clean energy industries. The shift could also position the U.S. as a global leader in renewable technologies, fostering innovation and competitiveness in the emerging green economy. For states investing heavily in solar, wind, and energy storage, this could provide significant economic opportunities.
2. Rejoining Global Climate Agreements
Harris has been an advocate for the U.S. to play a leadership role in international climate agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord. Her administration would likely focus on meeting or exceeding the carbon reduction targets set by these agreements.
Potential Benefits: Rejoining international climate efforts could enhance the U.S.'s global standing and strengthen collaborative efforts to reduce carbon emissions. By focusing on climate action, Harris’s policies may also create opportunities for U.S. businesses in the clean energy sector to access international markets, supporting exports of renewable technologies.
3. Federal Investments in Green Jobs and Infrastructure
Harris supports significant federal investment in clean energy infrastructure, including modernizing the power grid, expanding electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and investing in research for renewable energy technologies.
Potential Benefits: Federal investments could stimulate job growth in green sectors, helping to transition workers from traditional energy jobs to positions in the renewable energy economy. Infrastructure improvements may also increase the reliability and scalability of renewable energy, allowing it to compete more effectively with traditional energy sources. For communities focused on sustainability and clean energy, these policies could lead to long-term economic development.
It is our belief that Kamala Harris is expected to still support the oil & gas industry since it is necessary for energy independence. Her stricter environmental policy will better protect our environment but could slow down renewable projects.
Her support for the oil and gas industry could be seen as a pragmatic approach to balancing energy independence with environmental responsibility. While she advocates for a transition to cleaner energy sources, completely eliminating traditional energy too quickly could risk economic stability and energy security. Her stricter environmental regulations, aimed at reducing emissions and protecting ecosystems, may indeed slow down certain renewable projects due to more stringent permitting processes or regulatory reviews. However, these policies could ultimately lead to more sustainable development and push for innovations that make renewables not just greener but more efficient and reliable in the long run. It’s a complex balancing act, navigating short-term energy needs and long-term climate goals.
Weighing the Impact of Trump vs. Harris on Renewable Energy
The 2024 election presents two distinct paths for the future of renewable energy in the U.S., each with its own set of advantages and trade-offs.
Donald Trump’s Approach: A Trump administration would likely continue to prioritize fossil fuels and energy independence through deregulation. This could benefit traditional energy sectors by preserving jobs and lowering costs, particularly for states reliant on coal, oil, and gas industries. However, this approach may slow the pace of renewable energy growth and reduce federal support for clean energy projects.
Kamala Harris’s Approach: A Harris administration would focus on accelerating the transition to renewable energy through federal investments, climate action, and global cooperation. This could drive innovation, job creation, and long-term growth in the clean energy sector. While this transition may challenge traditional energy industries, it could position the U.S. as a leader in the global renewable market and create opportunities for sustainable economic growth.
Ultimately, the election will shape the renewable energy sector based on the candidate’s vision for balancing the needs of traditional energy industries and the growing importance of renewable energy in addressing climate change. Each approach presents distinct opportunities, depending on the priorities of the voters and the industries affected.
