The EU’s moratorium on Arctic drilling was enacted in 2021 due to the bloc’s climate commitments and stated environmental concerns. The ban does not allow drilling in Norway’s northern Barents Sea, which is estimated to contain most of the remaining Norwegian oil and gas resources. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), who is not known for supporting oil and gas development, said the European Union should reverse the current moratorium on drilling in the Arctic, as it is extremely important for European energy security. Reuters reports that the EU is considering revising its policy in response to concerns about energy security.

Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of ‌Ukraine, Norway, not an EU member but a close ally, has become Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas, meeting around 30% of the European Union and Britain’s gas demand. Norway also produces around 2% of global oil and provides significant hydropower exports to neighboring countries. In 2025, the country’s gas production was near record levels, and oil production attained its highest level since 2009. But production is expected to fall sharply after 2030 unless new resources are discovered and developed, which is why the Barents Sea resources are needed. Norway also aims to maintain oil and gas exports at current levels until at least 2035.

Critics also view developing these resources as creating stranded assets if the EU does not want them once they are developed. But according to Equinor, Norway’s largest oil firm, oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Barents Sea can be shipped anywhere in the world if prohibited for use by the EU.  Energy Minister Aasland has been outspoken in his defense of Norway’s energy resources, which has helped drive its significant oil and gas production in 2025.

Norway Goes to the Supreme Court to Overturn a Ruling

In 2023, two lower courts ruled in favor of Greenpeace and Young Friends of the Earth against the Norwegian government, finding that Norway failed to properly assess the environmental impact from Equinor’s Breidablikk and Aker BP’s Tyrving and Yggdrasil oilfield developments. Two fields – Breidablikk and Tyrving – are already producing, while Yggdrasil, Norway’s largest offshore oil project since 2019, is scheduled to begin production in 2027. The oil industry in Norway provides half the ​country’s export revenue and has given the nation the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.

Norway’s government has now asked the country’s Supreme Court to overturn that lower-court ruling, which invalidated the permits for the three oilfields. The lower courts have declined to order a halt to production while the legal process is ongoing and have also suggested that the government could seek to remedy regulatory shortcomings. If Greenpeace Norway wins this round, it believes Norwegian politicians would have to assess environmental damage from Norwegian Oil Production, e.g., how many lives will be lost, how many forest fires will be created, and how much ice will melt. The Supreme Court hearing is set to run for four days, and a verdict is expected later this year.

Norway Is No Longer Europe’s “Green Battery”

According to Energy Minister Terje Aasland, Norway no longer sees itself ‌as Europe’s “green battery.” In addition to oil and gas, Norway produces hydroelectric power from an extensive network of reservoirs and waterways ​feeding hydroelectric plants, which produce nearly 90% of the country’s electricity.  It exports excess hydropower to Europe via cross-border power cables when available. New power interconnectors, including links to Britain and Germany, were built to enable the connection, but they drew opposition in Norway because its electricity prices have been affected by European electricity prices, which have risen due to European climate policies. In other words, integration with Europe’s power system made Norway’s power system vulnerable to electricity price swings.

Norway has urged European countries to strengthen their stable power supply, weakened by coal and nuclear plant closures and a lack of investment in new gas-fired generation. Europe has instead focused more on intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, which do not provide stable power supplies. The country, however, remains committed to ​strong power sector cooperation with Europe.

Conclusion

Norway will continue to produce oil in the Arctic despite the EU moratorium on Arctic hydrocarbon supplies, as production in the Barents Sea is needed to meet its goal of maintaining oil and gas exports at current levels until at least 2035. Norway sees oil and gas production as necessary for Europe’s national security. Norway is asking the Supreme Court to overturn environmental verdicts by lower courts against its oil fields—a case which will be decided later this year. Norway has also decided it is no longer Europe’s “green battery,” as its interconnection with Europe has caused price swings driven by rising electricity prices from Europe’s net-zero policies, the retirement of stable generation sources, and heavy reliance on intermittent renewables.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post Norway Says ‘No Deal’ To European Union’s Green New Deal appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

California claims the incremental cost for consumers would be very low – only $1.50 per tire during Phase 1 (2029-2033) and $6.50 per tire during Phase 2 (2033 and beyond). According to the state, a typical driver of a gasoline car with more efficient tires at the Phase 2 requirement would save $179 of gasoline over the life of a set of tires, or about seven times the incremental cost based on gasoline prices of $4.60 per gallon. At mid-2026 gasoline prices, the state says savings could be 25% higher. The California Energy Commission estimates that drivers could save $79 in gas or electricity costs within four months under the first phase of the regulations, and about $153 within seven months under the second phase. California Governor Gavin Newsom and other state politicians boast that the new rules would save drivers $1 billion a year.

However, while some tire brands say the new standards would save a couple of miles per gallon on the highway, drivers have not seen a difference. Further, the change could potentially remove 70% of the tires currently available to California drivers from the market and increase the cost of an average set of tires by hundreds of dollars. In state testimony, tire industry leaders indicate that actual price increases could reach several hundred dollars by the 2030s. According to the Tire Industry Association, average tire prices could rise from $81 to $157. If a car owner purchased four new tires, the difference could exceed $300 per vehicle. Higher prices could push vehicle owners to buy used tires, which cost about half the price of new tires, defeating the purpose of the new rule. Other buyers could put off buying tires for as long as possible, hurting sales when many tire businesses may be struggling.

The tire industry is not against tire efficiency, but it questions whether regulators have adequately shown the requirement will be cost-effective for consumers, as the industry does not believe the rules will reduce overall consumer costs. Most all-season replacement tires last roughly 65,000 miles, but the European-standard tires that would be mandated average 27,000 miles, meaning consumers will have to replace them twice as often. Other tire industry concerns include replacement tire compatibility and consistent enforcement that protects consumers and supports fair competition. Some critics see the new rules as forcing consumers to buy thinner tires that are more prone to flats in a state with some of the worst roads in the country, despite high fuel taxes meant to maintain them.

The reality is that state lawmakers refuse to address the real reasons California gasoline and diesel prices are the highest in the nation, such as the state’s taxes and environmental regulations that demand certain gasoline blends. And the new rules could make electric vehicles—politically correct vehicles in Newsom’s California—less affordable, since they could wear through tires more often because they are heavier due to their large batteries. All Americans should be concerned, since California regulations sometimes become de facto national standards because of the size of California’s market. Companies end up standardizing their products rather than producing multiple offerings for different states.

Tires are often an under-appreciated contributor to vehicle performance, safety, and drivability.  Reducing resistance affects braking and steering, which ultimately shape the driving experience. The California Energy Commission’s record on energy affordability is poor, judging by California’s extraordinarily high electricity, gasoline, and other energy prices.  It would be surprising if this latest rule did not increase overall costs for California drivers, given that record.

Conclusion

The California Energy Commission has approved new rules for replacement tires, mandating that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles. California officials, including Governor Newsom, claim the program will lower fuel costs for drivers, saving drivers $1 billion per year, while the tire industry believes the opposite—that tire costs will increase, exceeding $300 for a set of four tires, with little benefit from lower fuel costs. To lower gasoline and diesel prices, California should review the climate policies and fuel taxes that make it have the highest gas prices in the country. These policies invite energy unaffordability and drive businesses out of the state. All Americans should be concerned because California regulations sometimes become de facto national standards because of the size of California’s market.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post Governor Gavin Takes Another Swing At Pricing Working Families Out Of Car Ownership appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

Beyond stopping future transactions, the order directs Energy Secretary Chris Wright to evaluate equipment already operating on the grid and to isolate, monitor, or remove pre-existing machinery if it poses an unacceptable security risk. The order directs officials to weigh reliability and safety, the availability of secure replacement equipment, and continuity of essential service before requiring equipment to be isolated, disconnected, replaced, or removed. The Energy Department can also phase in compliance.

The Department of Energy has 120 days to formalize and publish specific implementation rules detailing exactly which suppliers and parts face strict enforcement. The Energy Department is requesting public input on new transformer standards because of national security and supply chain concerns. Recently, the Federal Communications Commission tightened restrictions on some foreign-made robots and power inverters used in solar energy projects.

President Trump is also directing the federal government to reconsider how it purchases energy infrastructure. Within 180 days, the Energy Secretary must recommend changes to federal procurement rules to address national security risks and prioritize U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure. That provision could shift some federal demand from foreign suppliers to domestic manufacturers.

The restrictions focus on components supporting large-scale U.S. electricity infrastructure, including substation transformers, grid-connected inverters, large generators, battery energy storage systems, turbines, industrial control systems, and related software. The ban does not apply to facilities used for local, low-voltage distribution of electric energy. Fox News reports that the provisions could carry financial and operational consequences for the power sector, although the order does not estimate potential costs or identify which equipment or vendors could ultimately be affected.

Inverters are essential components that connect renewable energy facilities and battery storage systems to the power grid by converting direct current (DC) generated by power facilities into alternating current (AC) suitable for grid distribution. They are widely used in solar panels, wind farms, energy storage systems (ESS), and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In solar power installations, inverters account for roughly 10% of total installation costs.

The concern arose last year when U.S. technicians evaluated grid equipment for security issues and found rogue communication devices not listed in product documents in some Chinese solar power inverters. The Trump administration sees these restrictions as necessary because foreign-produced equipment could contain vulnerabilities, including digital backdoors that could provide remote access to critical infrastructure. Further, reliance on foreign suppliers leaves the United States vulnerable to equipment shortages caused by trade disruptions or other supply shocks.

In 2020, then-President Trump issued a directive declaring foreign-supplied grid components an “extraordinary threat to national security” and barring their purchase from entities deemed a risk. President Biden rescinded that directive. The 2020 order did not name specific countries or companies but empowered the Energy Secretary to identify them.

Conclusion

President Trump signed an emergency order that generally bars the U.S. purchase or installation of certain foreign-made bulk-power system electrical equipment and associated software that could pose cybersecurity or operational risks. Europe has recently taken similar actions for the same reasons. Concerns have escalated alongside the increasing deployment of grid-connected equipment, as modern solar inverters, battery-management systems, and other equipment can now generally be monitored and controlled remotely. The issue raises new potential vulnerabilities to cyberattacks and fears that foreign adversaries could exploit weak points in the devices. There is bipartisan concern that Chinese-manufactured components in the U.S. power system could contain vulnerabilities foreign adversaries can exploit. Purchasing that equipment for installation in the U.S. grid could be a serious mistake.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post Trump Administration Moves To Protect America’s Grid From Chinese Sabotage appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle released the following statement:

“Last year, Congress began the work of stopping California from using Clean Air Act waivers as a nationwide regulatory platform. These companion resolutions finish that job. The 2009 greenhouse gas waiver, Advanced Clean Cars I, the small engine rules, and the port and harbor craft mandates all impose California’s political preferences on families, businesses, and supply chains outside of that state.

“The Congressional Review Act exists for agency actions with national economic consequences. Passing these measures would also bar EPA from simply reissuing similar waivers later. Congress, not the California Air Resources Board, should set national policy. We encourage Congress to make these resolutions a priority as they return from August recess.” 

AEA Experts Available For Interview On This Topic:

• Tom J. Pyle, President
• Kenny Stein, Vice President of Policy
• Alex Stevens, Manager of Policy and Communications

Additional Background Resources From AEA:

• Coalition Letter
• House Vote Brings Us One Step Closer to Ending California’s Car Ban
• Senate Vote Ends California Car Ban

For media inquiries, please contact:
THOMAS.PYLE@ENERGYDC.ORG

The post American Energy Alliance Leads Coalition Letter Urging Congress to Reject California Waivers appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

Dear Members of Congress,

The undersigned organizations write in strong support of Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions of disapproval targeting Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted to California. We urge both the House and Senate to prioritize these companion measures as they return from the August recess.

The resolutions before Congress are:

• 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (California’s first GHG vehicle waiver): H.J. Res. 202, introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and S.J. Res. 206, introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO).
• Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) program (criteria pollutant and GHG standards beginning with model year 2015): H.J. Res. 205, introduced by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), and S.J. Res. 207, introduced by Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE).
• 2022 reinstatement of the ACC I waiver (after an earlier rescission): H.J. Res. 212, introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), and S.J. Res. 208, introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH).
• Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) standards for lawn and garden equipment and similar engines: H.J. Res. 214, introduced by Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), and S.J. Res. 205, introduced by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). 
• Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth regulation (shore power or equivalent emission controls for ships at California ports): H.J. Res. 210, introduced by Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA), and S.J. Res. 209, introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK).
• Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulation (tugs, ferries, and other workboats): S.J. Res. 210, introduced by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH). The House companion bill is H.J Res. 213, introduced by Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA). 

These actions continue the important work Congress began last year when it disapproved the Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and related waivers. California’s special waiver authority under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act was intended to address unique, localized air-quality problems in that state. It was never intended to turn the California Air Resources Board into a de facto national regulator that dictates vehicle design, engine technology, port operations, and consumer choice for the rest of the country.

The 2009 GHG waiver first authorized California to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The ACC I waiver, and its later reinstatement, were built on that foundation and advanced California’s electric-vehicle mandate. The SORE waiver extends the same approach to lawn mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, and other small off-road equipment that millions of American families and small businesses rely on every day. The At-Berth and Commercial Harbor Craft waivers apply the same model to ocean-going ships and harbor vessels serving ports that handle a large share of the nation’s imports. Together, these waivers are the foundation for policies that raise costs, limit choices, and impose California’s policy preferences on Americans nationwide.

Once EPA transmitted these waiver decisions to Congress under the CRA, Congress has the authority to approve or disapprove them. The CRA exists precisely for agency actions with nationwide economic consequences, and these waivers meet that test because they affect the entire motor-vehicle, small-engine, and maritime markets—not merely a single state’s internal enforcement. Passing these House and Senate resolutions would also trigger the CRA’s “substantially the same” prohibition, preventing EPA from simply reissuing similar waivers in a future administration without new congressional authorization. That is a durable, statutory protection for consumer choice and federalism that litigation alone cannot provide.

Support for H.J. Res. 202, 205, 210, 212, 213, and 214 and their Senate companions, including S.J. Res. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210, is a vote for consumer freedom and for the principle that national regulatory policy is set by Congress, not by a single state’s air board.

Sincerely,

The post AEA Leads Coalition of 25 Groups Urging Congress to Reject California Waivers appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

Lacking the oil and gas reserves of countries like the United States and Russia, China is converting its vast coal reserves into synthetic gas as a national security and economic hedge. China’s using its cheap coal to produce gas that costs less than buying LNG from abroad, as LNG prices have spiked due to the conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted global gas supplies. At 28 billion cubic meters per year, however, China’s coal-to-gas industry would supplement LNG rather than replace LNG imports, which fell 14% in 2025, slowing the pace of China’s LNG demand growth.

In 2025, China imported 39% of its natural gas supply (168.6 billion cubic meters), slightly lower than 2024 at 43%, due to a 6% increase in domestic production, totaling 264.1 billion cubic meters. China imported 90.8 billion cubic meters of LNG in 2025, with 29.4% coming from Qatar. Because Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, those imports essentially stopped during the conflict.  Other major LNG suppliers to China are Australia, Russia, and Malaysia. With Qatar’s LNG exports cut off, the LNG spot price in Asian markets spiked to over $20 per million Btu, confirming China’s expectations that LNG import dependency is a strategic vulnerability. China’s pipeline gas imports in 2025 were less than its LNG imports at 77.8 billion cubic meters, coming mainly from Russia and Turkmenistan, which together provided 86% of its pipeline gas imports.

China is the world’s largest coal producer and consumer by a wide margin. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, coal accounted for 57% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2025. Domestic coal production reached approximately 4.7 billion metric tons (1.7% higher than in 2024)—a new record. Nonetheless, China also imported coal, mainly from Indonesia, Mongolia, Russia and Australia. China’s coal mining is slated to expand by an additional 25% by 2030.

Besides coal-to-gas conversion, China’s 5-year plan expects growth in all areas of natural gas imports, including pipeline gas and LNG imports. China’s current LNG receiving capacity is about 130 to 157 million metric tons per year, spread across more than 30 operational receiving and regasification terminals, and it plans to expand it to 200 million metric tons per year by 2030. The country also plans to increase the import capacity of its onshore natural gas pipelines to 114 billion cubic meters annually by 2030. To strengthen energy distribution, it plans to build 20,000 kilometers of long-distance oil and gas pipelines by 2030, increasing the nation’s total long-distance pipeline network to 220,000 kilometers and significantly enhancing domestic supply chain resilience. Natural gas storage capacity will also expand, accounting for more than 13% of the country’s total natural gas consumption by 2030.

Because China is the world’s largest importer of oil and LNG, it is concerned about energy supply security due to the risk of a maritime blockade of its energy imports, supporting its decision to increase domestic production and coal conversion projects. Coal-to-gas projects, however, emit nearly three times as much carbon dioxide during conversion as is released when the gas is burned, which is the main reason China is behind on its 2025 carbon intensity target. Because China prioritizes energy security over carbon dioxide emissions growth, the conversion sector is likely to continue to grow, and its industrial sector will have the energy it needs to prosper, unlike countries in Europe.

Conclusion

China is expected to triple its coal-to-gas conversion from 2026 to 2030, reaching 28 billion cubic meters for national security and economic reasons. At that level, China’s coal-to-gas industry would be a supplement to LNG rather than a replacement for LNG imports, but its growth could slow the pace of Chinese LNG demand growth. China currently has about 20 billion cubic meters per year of coal-to-gas capacity under development, much of it in Xinjiang, where coal is cheap. Mine-mouth coal prices in China’s Xinjiang province average around $30 per metric ton, less than 40% of the equivalent price in Inner Mongolia. China’s 5-year plan not only supports increased coal-to-gas conversion, but also increased infrastructure for pipeline gas and LNG imports.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post China Triples Down On Coal While Still In The Paris Agreement appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

Impact of the Cuts

With the EV tax credit having expired at the end of September 2025 due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, EV sales in the United States fell 4% that year, despite spiking last summer before the credit went away. That compares to global EV sales, which increased more than 20% as other countries either reconstituted their EV subsidies or continued them. With less consumer interest, automakers have canceled plans for electric vehicle factories that the Biden administration supported. In 2024, for example, the Biden Administration gave over $1 billion to General Motors and Stellantis to build electric vehicles, with GM receiving $500 million to convert its Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant to manufacture electric vehicles. In 2026, GM laid off 350 employees at two Lansing plants as part of a previously announced $1.25 billion investment for gas-powered Cadillac CT5 production.

Power companies have traded wind projects for natural gas plants — in some cases, after the Trump administration agreed to repay offshore wind developers $1 billion or more for leases they had purchased to stop development of expensive offshore wind facilities. The Trump administration reached a nearly $1 billion agreement with French energy giant TotalEnergies to cancel its offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York and North Carolina. As part of the agreement, the Interior Department would terminate the leases for TotalEnergies’ Attentive Energy and Carolina Long Bay projects, worth $928 million — lease sales that occurred during the Biden administration. In return, TotalEnergies would invest the value of those leases into oil and natural gas production in the United States, after which the United States would reimburse the company dollar-for-dollar for the amount it paid for the offshore wind leases. TotalEnergies plans to redirect the funds toward the Rio Grande LNG plant in Texas and the development of upstream conventional oil in the Gulf of Mexico and shale gas production. The Trump administration made several similar deals, saving ratepayers from higher energy bills and reducing taxpayer expenditures on tax credits that operators would have received if the projects had gone forward.

In just one year, the number of natural gas plants planning to come online by 2030 nearly tripled to about 66 gigawatts, equivalent to adding the combined generating capacity of Pennsylvania and Maryland, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Investments in clean energy manufacturing for factories making EV batteries, solar panels and other “clean” technologies fell 17% to $41 billion in 2025, according to tracking from the Rhodium Group and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Other projects continued because of demand or state renewable power mandates. For example, a 400-megawatt solar project in Pennsylvania and a 578-mile transmission line connecting Kansas to Missouri are both moving forward, despite losing a $90 million DOE grant and a $4.9 billion loan guarantee, respectively.

EPA canceled a $1 million grant to create a community and cultural center in the Town of Bluff, Utah. The award was initially made under the IRA’s $3 billion environmental justice block grant initiative. Court documents show the Trump administration canceled it after announcing that redressing social and economic disparities in environmental policy was no longer a priority. The grant illustrates the wide latitude the government felt it had in distributing large sums of taxpayer money under the justification of the environment or climate.

The Trump administration, however, is keeping some Biden-era funding. In April, the Energy Department published a list of more than 1,900 projects it planned to keep after a year-plus review of Biden-era awards. The list included reinstating some awards the department previously terminated — mainly for grid-related projects. The Energy Department retained or modified 86% of the projects it reviewed.

On the cancellation side, the Energy Department terminated a $500 million grant for a California company looking for “cleaner” ways to make cement, and another $500 million grant for an Indiana cement plant looking to install technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide. It also canceled a $316 million grant for a company building a factory for manufacturing components for EV batteries in Kentucky—a company (Ascend Elements) that later declared bankruptcy. One company that was to make green hydrogen, which was awarded a $1.6 billion Energy Department loan guarantee days before Biden left office, subsequently suspended the work related to it.

Conclusion

The Trump administration has cut much of the Biden administration’s climate program funding. About one-third — $600 billion of the $1.6 trillion in Congressionally approved funds — is still available, according to Politico. President Trump and Congress have eliminated more than $540 billion in Biden-era tax incentives for electric cars, wind and solar power, and other “clean” technology. Biden’s climate and infrastructure laws provided nearly $1 trillion in grants, contracts, and other direct federal outlays, and the Trump administration has tried to cut about 6%—about $60 billion—of that, but court challenges have largely stalled those funds.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post President Trump Takes An Axe To Biden’s Green New Deal appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

More information regarding the dangers of reliance on Chinese mineral processing can be found in this article from the Institute for Energy Research. The full text of the letter is available below:

The post AEA Joins With 13 Free Market Groups In Urging The Trump Administration to Prevent Chinese-controlled Battery Companies from Accessing American Manufacturing and Tax Incentives appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

NBC reports that Shapiro is removing all data center projects from his state’s fast-track permitting program, and going forward, they would be ineligible for those measures. He also said nondisclosure agreements for data center projects will not be allowed in the state under his new order. Opponents have raised concerns about rising electricity bills, environmental impacts, and fears about the growth of AI technology, among other issues. According to Shapiro, there are only about five projects that have even received permits to go forward, but there are “100 projects or so that are wreaking havoc on our communities that are never going to be built.”

In western Pennsylvania, a Las Vegas developer wants to convert an abandoned 400-acre former racetrack in Big Beaver into a three-building, 600,000-square-foot data center complex. But neighbors oppose it, concerned about noise, pollution, water use, and rising electric bills. The borough planning committee will hold its first review of the application from Switch Data Centers later this month, but towns like Big Beaver are rushing to write data center ordinances. With Shapiro’s executive order, residents would now have the power to stop or modify the projects.

While Shapiro is still allowing data centers under strict rules, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a one-year moratorium on data center development, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott paused data center projects, pending an audit.

To address rising electric bills, President Trump has promoted the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge,” in which developers who sign on fund the cost of increased power generation and infrastructure for the developments. President Trump has touted the benefits of data center development, including potential job growth, increased tax revenue for localities that accept the developments, and potential property tax cuts, among other incentives. Leaders have also argued that environmental concerns have been overblown or are based on faulty data.

Virginia, known as Data Center Alley, has the most data centers of any state. Loudoun County, home to about 250 data centers, is also one of the wealthiest counties in the country, where the typical homeowner receives roughly $5,800 a year in tax benefits from lower rates tied to data centers that now supply roughly half of the county’s property tax revenue. According to county officials, for every dollar data centers consume in county services, the county gets back $26 in tax revenue. Property taxes on data centers and a tax on their computer equipment are expected to generate $1.3 billion next year, accounting for 40% of the county’s total tax revenue, according to the county’s 2027 fiscal year budget. Those data centers have also helped pay for a $102 million recreation center with multiple pools and hydro-massage chairs; a $22 million conversion of former President James Monroe’s estate into a park; and the construction of two new schools with a third on the way; the expansion of fire and emergency services, roads, bridges and recreational facilities; and 15,000 jobs.

The opposition to data centers is fueled by misinformation, much of it spread by China, which is in a race with the United States to lead the industry, which America needs to win for national security reasons. Data centers also enable Instagram and Waze, streaming movies, online banking, hailing an Uber, and conversing with A.I. chatbots, among many other future uses that could open frontiers in defense and medicine. As of April, there were more than 3,000 operational data centers in the United States with more than 1,500 new centers in development. McKinsey predicts that by 2030, data centers worldwide will require nearly $7 trillion in capital outlays to meet the demands for computer power.

Job opportunities abound around data centers. For example, according to an opinion piece in the N.Y. Times, a decade ago, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 26 in the Washington, D.C., region worked about 14 million hours annually. In 2025, they worked 28 million hours and will likely top 33 million hours this year with good-paying jobs. Job growth occurred because of growth in data centers in Northern Virginia, with associated jobs in construction and maintenance. Data centers are not single projects; they are built in phases over years and continually upgraded, expanded, reconfigured, and maintained as technology evolves, creating steady, local, long-term employment.

Conclusion

Pennsylvania became the latest state to clamp down on data center development, but unlike New York and Texas, it did not impose a moratorium or pause; instead, it mandated strict rules to follow. Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro said he did so because residents worry about noise, water use, and rising electric bills. Misinformation about data centers has raised concerns among Americans, but benefits also exist, including job growth, increased tax revenue, and property tax cuts, among other incentives. Loudon County, Virginia, is an example of a wealthy area reaping huge benefits. Property taxes on data centers and a tax on their computer equipment are expected to generate $1.3 billion next year, accounting for 40% of the county’s total tax revenue.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post Governor Shapiro Caves To Chinese Disinformation Campaign With New Innovation Stifling Regulations appeared first on American Energy Alliance.

EV sales in Europe rose 33% to ‌450,000 units, pushing year-to-date growth to 28%, as Europe continued its EV subsidies. Several of Europe’s largest auto markets brought back or expanded EV subsidies over the past 18 months. For example, Spain, where EV sales are up 34% this year, opened its new Auto+ incentive program on August 4. Buyers can receive up to €4,500 ($5,190), and they can apply retroactively for purchases dating back to January 1. In July, EV growth in Europe’s larger economies, France, Germany and Britain, was ​81%, 46% and 43%, respectively.

​The fastest growth in EV sales came from what the IEA calls the “Rest of the World (every place except the United States, China and Europe),” where July sales nearly doubled to 280,000 vehicles. Sales in those markets reached 1.7 million through July – up 96% year over year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), growing EV markets include Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. Altogether, Rest of World EV sales growth has outpaced other markets for several years.

North America’s EV sales dropped 27% to 140,000 vehicles in July, following the end ⁠of ​U.S. EV tax credits, which the United States ended on September 30, 2025, as part of the legislative actions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed earlier in that year. Sales through the first seven months reached 900,000, down 18%. July sales fell more than 30% year over year due to the loss of the federal EV tax credit, reduced Biden-era regulations that forced sales of electric vehicles, and elevated sales last summer before the Trump administration ended the federal EV tax credit.

The impact of the Iran war on EV sales is more constrained in the United States than in Europe and the Rest of the World because fuel prices are lower in the United States than in Europe and other regions, due to the country’s domestic production and comparatively low fuel taxes. U.S. hybrid vehicle sales, however, have risen since February, peaking at 17.4% in May, up from 13.9% in February before the war began.

Canada may see an increase in EV sales from Chinese automakers as it lowered steep import taxes on tens of thousands of Chinese electric vehicles and is allowing a limited number of those vehicles to enter its market. Mexico, at the Trump administration’s urging, imposed a 50% tariff on Chinese autos. While the tariff took effect on January 1, Chinese brands accounted for 17% of new vehicle sales in Mexico in the first half of the year, up from 14% a year earlier, with sales increasing to 137,525 from 107,712. According to Mexico’s Deputy Foreign Trade Minister Luis Rosendo Gutierrez, the sales data is misleading because Chinese automakers began the year with sizable inventories in Mexico after front-loading shipments ahead of the ​tariff increase. In reality, imports of Chinese-brand vehicles fell 43% during the first five months of the year compared with the same period last year.

China’s Auto Market

China’s car sales fell for a 10th straight month in July, though the rate of decline eased, contrasting with strong export growth as Chinese automakers use overseas expansion to offset competition in China — the world’s largest auto market. China’s car sales dropped 21.1% in July from a year earlier to 1.47 million vehicles, while exports rose 88.2% to 923,000. Electrek’s breakdown of China’s July sales found that battery electric vehicle sales actually rose 6% year over year while plug-in hybrid sales fell 21.1%, extended-range EV sales dropped 16.5%, and gas car sales dropped 44%. Elevated fuel prices hurt demand for gasoline-powered vehicles more than for other vehicles. In the ​first half of this year, China’s domestic car sales fell by 2.3 million vehicles from a year earlier, a 20% drop.

Chinese automakers are using exports to offset lower domestic sales. They are able to find growth outside of China due to their excess manufacturing capacity spurred by government incentives, highly competitive ​supply chains, and increasingly sophisticated products, often tailored to the market sought. BYD, the world’s largest manufacturer and seller of electric vehicles, for example, has offset a 35% drop in domestic sales during the first seven months of the year with overseas sales surging 79% year-on-year. Brazil and Britain are BYD’s largest country markets outside China in 2026. Chinese brands account for nearly a quarter of Europe’s EV shipments, and Chinese automakers are even moving beyond exports and building factories in Europe.

Conclusion

Global EV sales rose 9% in July as higher oil prices from the conflict in the Middle East have given electric vehicles a boost over gasoline-powered vehicles. Despite their overall rise, North America and Chinese auto markets saw a decline in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. North America’s EV sales dropped 27% to 140,000 vehicles in July, following the end ⁠of U.S. EV tax credits. July sales in North America fell more than 30% year over year due to the loss of the federal EV tax credit, a weakened regulatory environment, and elevated sales last summer before the federal EV tax credit was ended by the Trump administration. EV sales in Europe rose 33% to ‌450,000 units, pushing year-to-date growth to 28%, as Europe continued its EV subsidies. China’s domestic EV ⁠sales declined by 5% to 980,000 vehicles in July, while its electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid exports grew 147.8% year-on-year.  Chinese brands account for nearly a quarter of Europe’s EV shipments, and Chinese automakers are even moving beyond exports and building factories in Europe.

*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The post Without Biden Mandate And Tax Credits America Bucks Global EV Trend appeared first on American Energy Alliance.