Trump Or Clinton? What’s At Stake For Energy States

“It’s about setting the table so all American energy can be successful if it is successful, and letting the markets determine that.”

By Amy SiskOctober 26, 2016 10:42 am| , ,

From Inside Energy

The two presidential candidates’ views on energy development look nothing alike, but the outcome on election day could have wide repercussions in the energy world. That is especially true for states like North Dakota dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

Donald Trump wants to get government out of industry.

“Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped and scrapped completely,” he said in May during his first major energy policy speech in Bismarck.

And Hillary Clinton seeks to regulate fossil fuels while bolstering renewables.

“We’re going to combat climate change with more clean renewable energy jobs,” she said in March at a campaign rally in Seattle.

Either candidate’s energy platform could have real impact on the ground in North Dakota, where coal, oil and gas are kings.

Coal, for example, generates 75 percent of the state’s electricity. But one of the most pressing energy issues on the next president’s plate could change that.

The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce harmful greenhouse gases and would force North Dakota to cut its carbon emissions 45 percent by 2030.

Jason Bohrer, president and CEO of the Lignite Energy Council, said the Clean Power Plan could cripple North Dakota’s coal industry.

“Really the only way to reduce carbon dioxide from a coal fired power plant is to shut it down,” he said.

In North Dakota, most power plants are fed directly by lignite coal mines. Those mines don’t have any customers other than their plants next door. The power plant industry there supports 4,000 jobs.

Read more.