The unexpected withdrawal of President Joe Biden from the 2024 presidential race has thrust Vice President Kamala Harris into the spotlight as the presumptive Democratic nominee. This shift has significant implications for energy policy, especially given Harris’s historically more progressive stance on environmental issues compared to Biden. As Democrats prepare for a new campaign landscape, the energy sector and environmental advocates are closely scrutinizing how Harris’s platform will resonate with voters and potentially differ from a Republican approach.
Environmental groups have largely reacted positively to the prospect of a Harris candidacy. Many believe she will not only continue but potentially amplify the Biden administration’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tackling climate change. This anticipation stems from Harris’s track record, which demonstrates a willingness to embrace more aggressive climate action.
Throughout her career, particularly during her time as a senator and her 2020 presidential primary run, Harris positioned herself to the left of Biden on numerous energy-related issues. Notably, she expressed support for controversial measures such as ending hydraulic fracturing (fracking), a drilling technique crucial to the oil and gas industry, and banning plastic straws. Furthermore, she advocated for eliminating the filibuster, a Senate rule often seen as an obstacle to progressive legislation.
Harris was also an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a sweeping proposal championed by progressive Democrats that aims to address climate change and economic inequality. While the resolution itself did not pass, many of its core tenets have found their way into subsequent legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. Conversely, Republicans frequently criticize the Green New Deal as symbolic of policies they deem detrimental to the fossil fuel industry. Adding to her progressive credentials, Harris co-sponsored the Climate Equity Act of 2020, designed to assess the impact of legislation on disadvantaged communities, further highlighting her focus on environmental justice.
However, upon joining the Biden ticket as Vice President, Harris adopted a more moderate stance, aligning with Biden’s platform which did not include a fracking ban. This shift was likely intended to appeal to voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where the oil and gas industry holds significant economic sway. Despite this pivot at the national level, it’s important to recall Harris’s actions as California’s Attorney General. In 2016, she sued the Obama administration over potential fracking off the California coast, citing concerns about the practice’s impact on “the health and well-being of California communities.” She also initiated an investigation into Exxon Mobil to determine if the company had misled the public regarding the realities of climate change. These actions underscore a complex and at times nuanced history on energy issues.
Political analysts suggest that Harris’s past positions could become fodder for attacks in a general election campaign. Christopher Borick, a political science professor at Muhlenberg College, points out that her previous anti-fracking stance could be exploited by the Trump campaign to portray her as more extreme than Biden, particularly in states like Pennsylvania where fracking is a salient issue for certain voter segments.
Conversely, the Biden administration’s investments in clean energy infrastructure, actively pursued by Democratic governors in swing states such as Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, could provide Harris with a strong counter-narrative. Barry Rabe, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, suggests this could be a platform for Harris to present a “vivid alternative to the emerging Trump-Vance plan focused exclusively on fossil fuels.”
Clearview Energy Partners, in a recent research note, highlighted the potential for the Harris campaign to emphasize climate policy as a strategic move to energize younger voters. According to Clearview Energy Partners, this demographic, whose turnout is crucial in closely contested swing states, could be particularly responsive to a candidate prioritizing climate action. This analysis from Clearview Energy Partners suggests a calculated political rationale behind a potential climate-focused campaign strategy.
The departure of Biden from the race has also been welcomed by some climate activists who had been advocating for a change in Democratic leadership. Groups like Climate Defiance and Sunrise Movement, which had publicly called for Biden to step aside, express optimism that a new nominee will adopt a bolder climate strategy to challenge Donald Trump, who has consistently downplayed climate science and criticized Biden’s green initiatives.
Energy industry groups are adopting a cautious approach, refraining from endorsing any candidate at this early stage. This reflects the uncertainty surrounding the election outcome and the divergent energy policy approaches of the two likely contenders. The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), representing both offshore wind and oil interests, emphasized the need for a “balanced and forward-thinking approach to energy policy,” encompassing a diverse range of offshore energy resources. While the Biden administration has championed offshore wind development, the oil and gas industry has faced stricter regulations under his tenure. In contrast, Trump has pledged to reverse course, promising to expand fossil fuel production and halt offshore wind projects.
Looking ahead, it is anticipated that a Harris administration would likely maintain or even strengthen the Department of Energy’s focus on funding innovative clean energy technologies. According to a Department of Energy official who spoke anonymously to POLITICO’s E&E News, a significant shift in the department’s clean energy agenda is not expected under Harris.
The fundamental difference between a Harris and Trump presidency on energy policy is stark. Harris is expected to pursue policies aimed at regulating greenhouse gas emissions, while Trump is likely to continuederegulatory approach, prioritizing fossil fuel production. This divergence extends to trade policy as well. Trump’s protectionist trade stance, including proposed tariffs, is viewed with concern by the oil and gas industry, which fears increased costs and retaliatory measures. Harris, while advocating for holding China accountable on trade practices, has also expressed support for trade policies that facilitate international commerce, and recognize the need for global cooperation on climate change.
In the early stages of her campaign, Harris has already begun to draw contrasts with Trump, specifically criticizing “Project 2025,” a conservative blueprint for a potential second Trump administration. This document advocates for repealing key climate and infrastructure legislation and dismantling clean energy offices within the Department of Energy. Environmental and climate organizations are banking on a new Democratic ticket to prevent such a scenario, hoping to build on the Biden administration’s climate achievements and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future. Groups like the Sunrise Movement are mobilizing young voters, emphasizing the high stakes of the upcoming election for climate action.
The coming months will be critical in defining the energy policy debate in the 2024 election. As Kamala Harris steps into the forefront, her evolving energy platform, scrutinized by groups like Clearview Energy Partners and various stakeholders, will play a pivotal role in shaping voter perceptions and determining the future direction of US energy and climate policy.
