AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
Former President Donald Trump has set a high goal for himself if he wins the election this fall - slash energy prices in half.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DONALD TRUMP: If you make doughnuts, if you make cars - whatever you make, energy is a big deal, and we're going to get that - it's my ambition to get your energy bill within 12 months down 50%.
RASCOE: It's an idea that appeals to voters still suffering from a rapid rise in prices. But inflation has come down recently, and his plan requires cooperation from U.S. energy companies. They would have to extract more oil and gas than they ever have. Here with a look at the energy policies of both major party candidates is Patrick De Haan. He's the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gasoline prices. Welcome to the program.
PATRICK DE HAAN: Thanks for having me.
RASCOE: What do you make of President Trump vowing to cut energy prices in this way? Can he actually do that?
DE HAAN: Well, he can certainly deregulate some of the system, allowing oil companies to potentially drill more at a easier pace. He could open up additional drilling. It was President Biden that had eliminated leases in some areas on federal land. Now, keep in mind, federal land is a very small total of U.S. oil production on federal land, so it wouldn't have a big impact, but ultimately, there are some things that the president can do to incentivize oil companies, but ultimately, it's at oil companies' whims if they'd like to increase production or not. And should oil prices decline to the point the president likes, it would be at a point where many oil companies are losing money on every barrel.
RASCOE: Oil is also - it's a global commodity. So it's not just based on production in the U.S. If the U.S. increases production, what will other countries do?
DE HAAN: Well, to your point, even if President Trump were to deregulate allowing oil companies to drill more and somehow mandate them to do so, which is a whole nother process, then you have the global market. And oil producers and countries would likely respond to that, as well. So there's multiple kinks in this hose that would deliver this. and countries outside of the U.S. - like OPEC countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia - would likely offset any increase in U.S. production by cutting their own.
RASCOE: Because they don't want the prices to drop too low.
DE HAAN: Exactly. Whether U.S. oil producers or foreign oil producers, nobody's going to be profitable at $35 a barrel, which is roughly half of where oil prices stand today.
RASCOE: Turning to Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump has really gone after her for opposing fracking in the past, which she did. And that's a process to get natural gas out of shale formations. But she switched her position and now supports fracking. Why did she do that?
DE HAAN: The only really thing that I can see is that once a politician becomes educated on the issue, she probably had a better understanding of the amount of jobs, especially in some of the battleground states, that could be impacted, especially Pennsylvania. In addition, it can increase U.S. energy security, especially in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Look at the amount of natural gas the U.S. is now exporting to Europe, replacing that Russian supply. So I think there was an about-face here realizing that the U.S. has a very unique role in providing energy security to the global marketplace.
RASCOE: There are some Democrats and definitely a lot of environmentalists who are unhappy that Harris is supporting fracking because they argue that the U.S. needs to be getting off of fossil fuels. Do you see her trying to pursue policies that would address some of these concerns that environmentalists have about fracking and oil and gas drilling?
DE HAAN: It would seem to me that Harris has become a little bit more centrist, and that doesn't mean she can't accommodate some of the environmental concerns. There are areas of investment that can be made, incentives for Americans to purchase EVs. And I think that's the bigger picture here is that while Harris may push the U.S. towards more of an energy transition, she can also raise energy security by having the U.S. produce more, not necessarily for the United States, but to keep our partners and allies well supplied.
RASCOE: Do these two candidates really differ in any meaningful way on energy policy?
DE HAAN: I think if you really go into the weeds on these issues, I think you would still find a lot of differentiating factors between a Trump administration and a Harris administration. A Trump administration arguably could deregulate so significantly, even easing things like the Clean Water Act - that was something that they had thought of even during President Trump's first term to allow oil companies to worry less about the ramifications of drilling - whereas the Harris administration has moved more right. They are still in more of a centrist position on policy like this. They are certainly not rubber-stamping oil industry projects, but I think - come to a sense that the U.S. has an increasing role in providing global energy security.
RASCOE: That's Patrick De Haan from GasBuddy. Thank you so much for joining us.
DE HAAN: Thanks for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
