The Heritage plan for our energy future undermines that future
Ryan P. Kellogg and David Brunnert
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 seeks to fundamentally reshape the federal government, including dramatic changes to the nation’s energy policy. This 900-page “Mandate for Leadership” will be the policy bible for a second Trump administration — building well beyond the former president’s first day “drill baby drill” promise.
But what are these policies, and do they align with the interests of today’s U.S. oil and gas industry?
Mandate’s stated goal is to promote “American Energy Dominance.” This vision advocates for policies that prioritize consumer affordability and energy security by re-embracing fossil fuels and de- emphasizing climate concerns.
Unfavorable to industry
At first glance, this framework seems favorable to the American oil and gas industry. However, several of the proposed policies undercut investment in the industry and impair the industry’s future prosperity in the emerging energy transition marketplace.
True “American Energy Dominance” requires forward-thinking policies that balance economics, security, and climate sustainability — something the Heritage plan does not deliver.
Chief among the plan’s economic missteps is the call to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA overreaches in some ways — for example, unrealistic emission reductions for small businesses and restrictive labor and capital requirements.
But the law’s expansion of 45Q tax credits for carbon sequestration and storage ( CCS) is a gamechanger. CCS is widely supported by oil and gas trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute.
It’s also a technology in which the industry has a massive competitive advantage. Pulling the rug out from this nascent, $10 billion market will undermine existing investments, cost thousands of jobs, and reduce domestic production enabled by additional CO2 injection.
A key aspect of energy security is encouraging producers to innovate. Mandate undercuts this by eliminating many government financing programs in the name of not “picking winners and losers.” In reality, energy innovation requires massive capital investment and a lot of trial and error—risks that don’t align well with private markets.
Agencies like the DOE have historically provided “translation funding,” money that takes promising laboratory discoveries and makes commercialization possible.
In one of its greatest successes, DOE translation funds were critical to advancing hydraulic fracturing technologies. That investment that yielded hundreds of billions of dollars in value and laid the groundwork for today’s energy security so central to Mandate’s stated goals.
When translation funding went missing, as it did during critical periods of solar and battery development, American-developed technology floundered, eventually finding willing investors in China.
Combined with the CCP’s ample state support, these technologies created a renewable energy juggernaut that threatens a host of U.S. industries from auto makers to wind and solar manufacturers.
Sustainable climate
Finally, any realistic energy policy must embrace climate sustainability. Mandate fails this test by calling for the U.S.’s exit from the Paris Climate Agreement. Today’s American oil and gas producers embrace the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This is evident from last December’s UN COP28 meeting and the record attendance by industry representatives who brought strong commitments to global methane reduction. On this commitment, U.S. producers are actively upgrading facilities and monitoring equipment to comply with the EPA’s newly issued methane rules and investing significant human and financial capital to the effort.
Beyond the climate impacts, methane emissions undercut the U.S. ability to market LNG as a viable transition fuel to the world. As Pittsburgh-based EQT’s CEO Toby Rice has noted, replacing international coal with American natural gas could be the world’s largest green initiative — eliminating 1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, the equivalent of 325 million passenger cars.
At the end of the day, the private sector doesn’t like uncertainty and instability. If Heritage wants to avoid a repeat of Trump’s chaotic first term, it should embrace a bit of energy pragmatism instead.
Practices like carbon capture and methane emission reduction have already taken root in the oil and gas business model. These efforts leverage American oil field know-how, equipment, and workers. Repealing them now would squander the substantial efforts to date and limit growth in promising energy transition markets.
Policies to support
Instead, Heritage should focus its efforts on issues that have proven bipartisan support to ensure that energy policy is driven by balancing economics, energy security, and climate sustainability.
Good places to start include permitting reform for new natural gas and CO2 pipelines and LNG export terminals, as well as giving states flexibility to implement newly enacted EPA methane rules.
The U.S. is a global powerhouse in oil and gas and it has the potential to be one in green energy technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen, and geothermal. Heritage’s Project 2025 would cripple that potential, putting it, and a future Trump administration, out of step with the industry it claims to support.