Energy Independence and Presidential Politics

CNN’s “town meeting” joust between Donald Trump and Kaitlin Collins may have previewed likely topics for the upcoming presidential race. If so, we will hear a good bit about “energy independence” and even “energy dominance.”

Historical context can help evaluate what candidates tell us. So here is your energy independence guide for the November 2024 elections.

I am hardly a newcomer to this discussion. My book, A Declaration of Energy Independence, came out in 2008 when net U.S. oil imports stood at 57 percent. It argued the country’s national security, economy, and environment would be much better off if it sharply reduced its dependence on foreign oil. Moreover, there were viable ways to do so.

Many disagreed. Anti-regulation think tanks, free-market economists, and political “realists” countered that I was naïve (despite my seven-years stint as head of the Energy Information Administration). They contended that the advantages of international trade outweighed the risks of oil dependence. They challenged whether lowering oil imports was even possible. Several books at the time predicted imminent “peak oil” – the idea that the country was quickly running out of a fuel vital for human mobility. 

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart joined the discussion with his 2010 caricature of eight American presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barrack Obama, who called for some form of energy independence.

My “declaration” didn’t get everything right. But the value and feasibility of chopping U.S. dependence on nations intending us no good have been vindicated.

Indeed, the case that we can protect our energy security while aggressively addressing climate change is even more convincing today. For example, increased efficiency (power per square inch) and lower costs for photovoltaic solar cells have been dramatic game changers. Now, solar energy, while not the only answer, can lower electricity prices, protect the environment, and, when combined with electric vehicles, reduce reliance on foreign oil.

Some politicians argue that the transition to non-carbon fuels can’t come overnight and that the current administration has weakened U.S. energy independence by discouraging domestic oil production. A look at historical trends sheds some light on the subject.

The principal metric for energy independence is net oil imports (imports of crude and refined oil minus exports). During the Obama presidency, net imports fell from 57 percent to 24 percent. The decline continued under Trump. In his last year in office, exports exceeded imports – minus 4 percent net imports!

According to the latest data, exports under Joe Biden now exceed imports by 9 percent – a situation some have called “energy dominance.”

The primary factor in reducing energy dependence is clear – the extraordinary rise in U.S. crude oil production. After decades of decline, domestic output fell to 5 million barrels a day in 2007 – less than in 1950. It has since expanded to 12.3 million barrels a day (2019 pre-COVID and the first three months of 2023 post-COVID).

No president can claim sole credit for this stunning advance in energy independence. The investments in advanced technology that made it possible began during the 1970s. Measurable results first appeared during the second term of George W. Bush.

Moreover, the vast bulk of U.S. oil production comes from private rather than federal lands. Trends in nonfederal oil supplies are often determined more by the willingness of banks to lend money than by short-term national politics.

Building greater energy independence involves more than increasing oil production. Reducing domestic oil consumption can also play a critical role. However, the puny progress on this measure suggests that efforts to achieve energy independence have been unbalanced.

As evidence, note that over the past fifteen years (2007 to 2022) – while U.S. oil production grew by 134 percent – U.S. oil consumption for transportation fell by a mere 10 percent. This trend in oil use is underwhelming. Available technology makes it relatively easy to achieve much greater vehicle efficiencies without cutting features. Moreover, more rapid reductions in transportation’s oil use can contribute mightily to both energy independence and reductions in the carbon dioxide pollution that alters the world’s climate.

The third leg of the energy independence stool is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which can buffer unanticipated disruptions in global energy supplies. In January 2009, when Bush turned over the reins of presidential power to Obama, the SPR contained 704 million barrels of crude oil. To this point, the reserve had enjoyed bipartisan support. Emergency supplies were not too far below a long-time goal of 750 million barrels.

The reserve continued to grow during the early Obama years, reaching 727 million barrels in 2009-10. Then, complacency set in. As the dramatic boost in U.S. production became evident, Congress and the president couldn’t avoid the temptation of selling off oil to balance the federal budget. When Obama left office in January 2017, the SPR had fallen to 695 million barrels.

A new twist to the story came in 2016. Russia joined forces with the Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries to coordinate production quotas. With the world’s number two and three oil producers, the expanded cartel (“OPEC plus”) could wield substantial influence, even if the United States remained the top producer.

During Trump’s four years, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell at a faster pace, ending at 638 million barrels, again due to congressional mandates for nonemergency sales. During Biden’s first year, the stockpile dropped to 594 million barrels, a continuation of appropriators using the resources provided by their predecessors to ease pressures on the budget.

In spring 2022, President Biden accelerated already authorized nonemergency sales and added emergency releases to offset Vladimir Putin’s use of Russia’s oil leverage to undermine the resistance to the invasion of Ukraine. (Other countries pledged to release additional oil.) As a result, by May 19 of this year, the SPR had dropped to 358 million barrels. This constituted the lowest emergency stockpile since 1983, during its initial build.

The Biden administration pledged to replace the oil lost from emergency sales when oil markets stabilized – an example that the government can sell high and buy low. The long-term threat to the reserve remains congressional pressure to use the reserve as a piggy bank to balance the budget. This bipartisan trend would leave the United States more vulnerable during future emergencies and be good news for Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman.

Given the data, it is hard to see energy independence as a credible wedge issue for presidential campaigns. Presidents and congresses of both parties, along with entrepreneurs like George Mitchell, helped develop the technologies that enabled the boom in America. Both parties helped build the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and later weakened it with nonemergency sales. Biden’s emergency release responded effectively to the kind of situation feared by those who created the reserve and gave markets time to respond to substantial international disruptions.

Presidential contenders claiming to support energy independence will be more convincing if they avoid calls to stop drilling in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico or on private lands. (We don’t need the oil from pristine frontier locations but don’t want to encourage dirtier alternatives from abroad.) They should pledge to halt nonemergency sales from the SPR and correct at least some of the damage from previous sales. They should admit that the United States remains vulnerable to the vagaries of international oil markets, no matter how high domestic production.

If candidates are sincere about energy independence, they should also commit to weaning the country off fossil fuels (mainly by constraining demand for them) – the most effective solution for protecting national security and the environment.

Jay Hakes is the author of A Declaration of Energy Independence and is currently working on a book about the history of the climate debate in America.